[US] Ranger Squad

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[LuAn]

"Redistributing" Rangers Health would mean 97,5HP per man with elite armor.

[Sharpshooter824]

I say make a 4 man ranger squad or a 4 man zook ranger squad

(2 seperate squads)

4 man ranger squad with thompsons would cost 300 MP and 140 munis..5 pop

4 man zook squad of rangers would cost 300 MP and 80 munis..4 pop (This squad would obviously have 2 zooks)

that way the 4 man ranger squad with thompsons would lose firepower just as fast as falls or something lol..

what do you guys think?

[LuAn]

Not a bad idea.
(But why the Zook Rangers only on 4 pop?)

Under one criteria though: Both of those squads would have a supply of 2/1

This way the overall supply of ranger squad remains the same(which is currently 4/2)

[acker]

Make the upgrade cost a crapload more for an individual AI upgrade, and give six Thompsons if the Ranger is bought without bazookas.

That way, combat power would drop off with every loss, just like every other assault infantry squad out there, and the price would reflect it.


...Or, you could make buying 4 Thompsons without bazookas more expensive than the bazooka+[4 Thompsons]. So the Thompsons with the bazooka upgrade would be cheaper than the Thompson without the bazooka upgrade. Kinda like the 2nd-shrek-more-expensive thing, except in reverse.

[gamesguy2]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas with two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

[scrapking]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

This sounds like a sexy idea, and quite T3 worthy.  I might only worry about how it would work out with 4x zooks and Tank Reapers....

[LuAn]

Well they are still bazookas, but if 4 zooks are too much, then maybe 3?
But this T3 Idea is very good indeed.

[gamesguy2]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

This sounds like a sexy idea, and quite T3 worthy.  I might only worry about how it would work out with 4x zooks and Tank Reapers....

4x bazookas and tank reapers should rightly hurt.   Its an elite infantry using a tier 3 and a tier 4 dedicated AT doctrine choice, so tanks should definately fear them, thats the whole point of tank reapers afterall.

[scrapking]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

This sounds like a sexy idea, and quite T3 worthy.  I might only worry about how it would work out with 4x zooks and Tank Reapers....

4x bazookas and tank reapers should rightly hurt.   Its an elite infantry using a tier 3 and a tier 4 dedicated AT doctrine choice, so tanks should definately fear them, thats the whole point of tank reapers afterall.

Totally agree with your philosophy here, but onfield "op-ness" might prove otherwise when actually in play is what I'd want to watch out for.

But I'd be all for it, I think its a great idea.

[AmPM]

At the same time, the FJ could use a boost like this, for their Schrek teams and so on.

[spinn72]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

Make it Thomspons available and 1 Bazooka, or instead of the bazookas Stickies available (so fire up + stickies is just as good as a bazooka)

[LuAn]

At the same time, the FJ could use a boost like this, for their Schrek teams and so on.

In comparison the 'dropping heavy' ability is probably a tad underpowered indeed.
Perhaps it would help if we made it a seperate unit with added availability, allowing users to get more air dropped units in total just like it does for AB players.

We'll be finalising doctrines over the course of the next week or so, once that is completed we will be able to take a closer look at existing doctrine balance, etc

[gamesguy2]

With regards to the falls, it would probably be easier to just make it a tier 2 that allows tank busters to be paradropped.

[Smokaz]

Should post in the dropping heavy thread for this, tbh

[Tymathee]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

This sounds like a sexy idea, and quite T3 worthy.  I might only worry about how it would work out with 4x zooks and Tank Reapers....

4x bazookas and tank reapers should rightly hurt.   Its an elite infantry using a tier 3 and a tier 4 dedicated AT doctrine choice, so tanks should definately fear them, thats the whole point of tank reapers afterall.

I dont think this would work because most people have rangers in 2's, can you imagine the whinage when 8 bazooks come flying towards a p4 6 hit doing 720 of damage and killing the p4? We'd have so much whining about it being OP, which it would be. I would like the option of buying ranger squads without the bazooka though, I think that would be a nice doctrine choice for infantry.

All you'd have to do is have another ranger squad created, give it 2/1 and have the smg upgrade cost more for a ranger squad without bazooka's, this would go along with the already +4 that you can get, but instead change it to +2 so you get 2 extra regular rangers and you get teh 2/1 for "blank" rangers that you choose to only buy smg's on and instead of 120, make it 160/180.

[Smokaz]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

This sounds like a sexy idea, and quite T3 worthy.  I might only worry about how it would work out with 4x zooks and Tank Reapers....

4x bazookas and tank reapers should rightly hurt.   Its an elite infantry using a tier 3 and a tier 4 dedicated AT doctrine choice, so tanks should definately fear them, thats the whole point of tank reapers afterall.

I dont think this would work because most people have rangers in 2's, can you imagine the whinage when 8 bazooks come flying towards a p4 6 hit doing 720 of damage and killing the p4? We'd have so much whining about it being OP, which it would be. I would like the option of buying ranger squads without the bazooka though, I think that would be a nice doctrine choice for infantry.

All you'd have to do is have another ranger squad created, give it 2/1 and have the smg upgrade cost more for a ranger squad without bazooka's, this would go along with the already +4 that you can get, but instead change it to +2 so you get 2 extra regular rangers and you get teh 2/1 for "blank" rangers that you choose to only buy smg's on and instead of 120, make it 160/180.

True, increasing price on ranger squads with thompson only is also a way to balance this. Its the munition cost that would have to be affected, though.

[Tymathee]

Or how about this,

Equipment Surplus, Infantry tier 3:

Rangers may replace their bazookas two additional SMGs when purchasing the thompsons upgrade.  Alternatively, they may purchase an additional two bazookas(but no thompsons) for an additional 100 munitions.

This sounds like a sexy idea, and quite T3 worthy.  I might only worry about how it would work out with 4x zooks and Tank Reapers....

4x bazookas and tank reapers should rightly hurt.   Its an elite infantry using a tier 3 and a tier 4 dedicated AT doctrine choice, so tanks should definately fear them, thats the whole point of tank reapers afterall.

I dont think this would work because most people have rangers in 2's, can you imagine the whinage when 8 bazooks come flying towards a p4 6 hit doing 720 of damage and killing the p4? We'd have so much whining about it being OP, which it would be. I would like the option of buying ranger squads without the bazooka though, I think that would be a nice doctrine choice for infantry.

All you'd have to do is have another ranger squad created, give it 2/1 and have the smg upgrade cost more for a ranger squad without bazooka's, this would go along with the already +4 that you can get, but instead change it to +2 so you get 2 extra regular rangers and you get teh 2/1 for "blank" rangers that you choose to only buy smg's on and instead of 120, make it 160/180.

True, increasing price on ranger squads with thompson only is also a way to balance this. Its the munition cost that would have to be affected, though.

Yea thats what im saying. YOu can take off the muni cost for the zook, and then just up the price on the smg.

[gamesguy2]

I dont think this would work because most people have rangers in 2's, can you imagine the whinage when 8 bazooks come flying towards a p4 6 hit doing 720 of damage and killing the p4? We'd have so much whining about it being OP, which it would be. I would like the option of buying ranger squads without the bazooka though, I think that would be a nice doctrine choice for infantry.

All you'd have to do is have another ranger squad created, give it 2/1 and have the smg upgrade cost more for a ranger squad without bazooka's, this would go along with the already +4 that you can get, but instead change it to +2 so you get 2 extra regular rangers and you get teh 2/1 for "blank" rangers that you choose to only buy smg's on and instead of 120, make it 160/180.

You can see an two squads of rangers with 8 bazookas coming.   You can't see two squads of storms one volleying a sherman.  I think it would be very balanced.   The rangers would be nearly worthless anti-infantry and unlike storms they can't one volley tanks from cloak.

I don't see a problem with a 4 bazooka ranger that costs 180 munitions tbqh.  Hell, raise the price, say 200 munitions.

[Demon767]

260 and you got a deal.

[Freek]

260?  Thats almost 2 shreks!

I wouldn't pay more than 160-180 for 4 zooks.  Heck, smg & 2 zooks 'only' costs 220mu!