Profile of Kurobane

Jump back to quoted post23 Aug 2021, 14:23 PMProtos Angelus

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

Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2021, 21:18 PMgeneral_gawain

Here are the original patch notes that changed everything:

Rangers

Rangers are being more accessible, while their defensive stats are being adjusted to match all other infantry. Previously, they were the only ones to take less damage from all sources.

- Reinforce cost from 33 to 32
- Cost from 400 to 350
- 0.9 Damage reduction removed.
- Received Accuracy from 0.8 to 0.73.
- Now have access to Paratrooper Bazookas from Weapon Racks or drops. UI indicator added to inform the player of this change.


-------

They were even more pricy before. But of the course the gamechanger for them as a CQC unit was that they would nerver get wiped by a single standard AoE. And there is a lot of AoE in lategame, especially the multiplayer ones that were talked about here. I do think unless equipped with triple zook they scale poorly in lategame. CQC units overall tend to get less useful in lategame unless they have some sort of "defensive" buff like Commandos Camouflage or maybe Shocktroopers combination of six man + body armor + smoke grenade which makes them still somehow viable to use. CQC rangers just tend to bleed you too much. Airbornes with M1919A6 are much better for example because they deal their main damage at long range already and get less counter fire by doing so (preferable from a green cover position).

Jump back to quoted post21 Aug 2021, 13:41 PMProtos Angelus

Let's be honest, raketen is only ever in danger of a wipe in craters where they clump up (same as every other unit). It's still one of the most survivable AT guns in the game, not to mention it can be played very aggressively. I've seldom seen raketen wipes by infantry, only direct hits by HE tanks when super clumped up. I don't know where this myth that raketen is ez to wipe comes from

Jump back to quoted post21 Aug 2021, 16:48 PMKatukov

Give ostwind suppression


in exchange for it doing absolutely shitty DPS at mid and long range