Rangers. Cheaper or stronger?

[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

[Poppi]

When running rangers in this version, im not finding much use for them
They are easily handled with now the more cheaper/common axis lmg, smgs, and just about any weapon upgrade on inf. Rangers fall like flies. Their l33t status has gone out the window.
And rangers got an expensive 135(??)mu thompson that doesnt do impressive damage at all. And can only trolol over weak or vanilla soldiers. Grease guns can do that at half the price.

And i know im not the only one who arent impressed with rangers as i found out in this forum.

So will people feel more comfortable having rangers stay the same but cheaper tommys. keeping their tactics as is?
 or keep price of the tommy and increase units price and make them a fearsome force? by either increase HPs or some other option.


When i first started vCOH yearss ago i liked rangers b/c they were tough as fuck. So i liked the capabilities as a tough unit. So I would favor tougher over another weak US infantry unit. Plus it fits their stats as  specialty trained soldiers.


Maybe increase grenade range or +1 grenade can help them? Or LMG ?

[Tymathee]

no ranger buffs, it makes them too OP!

[Demon767]

i find them fine as is.

[Poppi]

i find them fine as is.

really? I dont see too many thompson rangers on the battlefield. And i do see plenty of bad posts about them on the forum
And in game people have said why not just run inf bars. Rangers dont offer any benefit. They arent a tactics changer really.

[Smokaz]

Kinda weird how they remain 6 pop at the moment

[Poppi]

no ranger buffs, it makes them too OP!

How do you figure.
Fail to see how a buff makes them OP if they are far from being OP.
Im not saying add 20HP to each soldier,  and increase acc, and increase DPS, etc. Though i wished they were bad ass, i dont want to make them equal to KCH just for the sake of mirroring of units
Just make it worth the MU and increase the MP to match their efficiency. And i think some unconventional buffs could help in that category.

a ranger that is 320mp and 130mu cant nearly do the damage of KCH oakleafs of 380mp and 120mu , both 6 pop. Not to mention with the assault ability tehy can take out a vet 3 ranger unit in about 2 secs.  And KCH ability to keep their man power and functionality at a 100% b/c of the high HP each man has. Like after 2 sniper shots and a quad volley, they still have 4 men and maintain their DPS and of course heal back to 100%

[DarkSoldierX]

Kinda weird how they remain 6 pop at the moment

+1

Oak leaves KCH >> Rangers

Much easier to retain DPS with KCH.

[AmPM]

How do you figure.
Fail to see how a buff makes them OP if they are far from being OP.
Im not saying add 20HP to each soldier,  and increase acc, and increase DPS, etc. Though i wished they were bad ass, i dont want to make them equal to KCH just for the sake of mirroring of units
Just make it worth the MU and increase the MP to match their efficiency. And i think some unconventional buffs could help in that category.

a ranger that is 320mp and 130mu cant nearly do the damage of KCH oakleafs of 380mp and 120mu , both 6 pop. Not to mention with the assault ability tehy can take out a vet 3 ranger unit in about 2 secs.  And KCH ability to keep their man power and functionality at a 100% b/c of the high HP each man has. Like after 2 sniper shots and a quad volley, they still have 4 men and maintain their DPS and of course heal back to 100%

10% price decrease across the board for rangers, move to 5 pop.

Or let them buy BARs.

[Smokaz]

My only concern is that without doctrine buffs, the 6 man ranger squad with thompsons are a hell of a lot better at taking on other AI infantry than both KCH and Fallschirms. Only storms are slightly better and they cost more. A ranger squad mops up two volk squads in the open, no problem. Probably 1 or 2 man dead from the rangers. Triage, rinse and repeat.

[BigDick]

i think the thomson upgrade should be 80mun to be an option to rapetheface bars and the ranger squad price something like 240mp tbh

[8thRifleRegiment]

Lol why dont we encourage more retarded Bar spam? Free BARs? can i haz free bars on my riflemanz? i mean... smgs+ BARs are lolz man, one bar sqaud backed up by an smg sqaud can take on anything with legs

[RikiRude]

rangers and AB should both be 5 pop. rangers need a decrease in mu and slight in mp.

[smurfORnot]

Lol why dont we encourage more retarded Bar spam? Free BARs? can i haz free bars on my riflemanz? i mean... smgs+ BARs are lolz man, one bar sqaud backed up by an smg sqaud can take on anything with legs

make it like in vcoh,you buy global bars upgrade,and everyone gets em for free

[BigDick]

bars don't fit to rangers but what we could do is giving them free grenades with a T2 or something

furthermore i think there should be a saving buying the full package (zooks+thomsons) for like 110mun

and according the 5pop is a good idea imho i got some nice ideas for a 5 ranger or 4 ranger + at gun core

[Poppi]

bars don't fit to rangers but what we could do is giving them free grenades with a T2 or something

furthermore i think there should be a saving buying the full package (zooks+thomsons) for like 110mun

and according the 5pop is a good idea imho i got some nice ideas for a 5 ranger or 4 ranger + at gun core

Ya rangers dont really fit the bars role even if no SF. Rangers should of an assault purpose and perhaps a sideways buff could change the rangers role.

Im not calling rangers totally useless, i had a few vet 2 rangers before terror company patch came in. Now they got wiped out. Not sure b/c of massive amount of smgs, or assault ability incinerating them in one hit, or maybe i got rusty and f'ed up.

Its just for 130mu its alot for a unit that cant terrorize most inf the way KCH can.  Should be 90-100 mu for thompsons and keep MP as is. And a grenade +1 amount or +5 distance in a tier or maybe you are right full package rangers should have a hugeee discount. Instead of saving only 5-10mu you can save like 50mu. A 6pop can be a balance for the price reduction. Not that 1pop makes too much a difference when you are talking about saving  about 150 mu in your company, and vice versa. +1 pop not worth the130mu over the 100mu tommy

[Hicks58]

Might want to consider looking at Stens while were looking at Thompsons.

135 MU for less effectiveness than Thompsons.

[TheVolskinator]

Didnt we already have a DPS thread where Stens and MP40s both out-DPS'd thompsons?

IMHO, SMG riflemen are much more cost effective. Especially vs any armor with doctrine buffs, which make rangers equally squishy as riflemen.

[Demon767]

You don't have to use Rangers for assault.

that by which comparing it to KCH which are a *forced* assault unit is a N/A balance argument.

So to be taken seriously, you cannot just talk about KCH and its AI DPS.

[DarkSoldierX]

You don't have to use Rangers for assault.

that by which comparing it to KCH which are a *forced* assault unit is a N/A balance argument.

So to be taken seriously, you cannot just talk about KCH and its AI DPS.

?

The only other option then "assault" is defending 57s with bazookas, which everyone knows bazookas have fail scatter and low penetration.

And even so I don't see how that argument is valid at all. Rangers have to assault with SMGs just like KCH do. Except KCH do it with much better survivability.

[Demon767]

?

The only other option then "assault" is defending 57s with bazookas, which everyone knows bazookas have fail scatter and low penetration.

bing bing, got it on the head.