RANGERSPAM!! #2216

[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

[AmPM]

Yea, and nobody thinks that this many ELITE troops is a little...IMBA.

Of course grens are so hardcore they needed a price increase though.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Skunker]

Fuck, I'm done with EiR for a day or so because of this.

[Unkn0wn]

For a day LOL.

[AmPM]

Yea, because Rangers that cost 349mp compared to grens at 320, they get cheap upgrades, heroic armor, and fireup....yea. This is a well balanced mod.

[salan]

where do you put recordings now a days to see them?

[AmPM]

C:\Documents and Settings\Jeff.FHOA2\My Documents\My Games\Company of Heroes\playback

[AmPmAllied]

Skunker and I are going to go allies =) RAAAANGERS!!!!

[salan]

Two things to note from a 3rd party..

1 the allies ONLY used rangers, not a single other unit was called in, would this have left them short if the battle went longer? I don't know..

2 the axis did not use any support weapons, they used grenadiers and volksgrenadiers and a few ostwinds.. could they have stopped rangers if they had layered 2 mgs and a mortar ... dunno, static defenses, the mortar would have had to have been back with the second mg to survive the original fire up, aswell the first mg would have had to have lmg support for when it was bypassed to protect the second mg/mortar.

ultimately ampms complaint about 1 unit being all someone needs seems valid, but again could playstyles be altered to stop the abuse of this function until/if it is fixed?

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

not a single man dies from two direct StuH shots!

rangers should be like stormtroopers; elite units to compliment your main army, not to BE your main army.

[Sls_lookout]

AmPm is right. Since all the ranger prices went down anyone who plays infantry almost use pure rangers with little to no rifleman. Yet because there so cheap we need to increase gren prices just to equal out. Someone walk me through this logic. Raising gren prices, ok. Decreasing rangers, meh. Both... wtf

[Sage-Jin]

not a single man dies from two direct StuH shots!

rangers should be like stormtroopers; elite units to compliment your main army, not to BE your main army.

Yes they do, he was killing my men and I retreated them before they wiped out my entire squads. The StuH's were owning till my Sherman came to support (note that I killed the first StuH with a grenade from my rangers --> LOL <---).

[Nevyen]

I tried the layered defence with mgs lmg and a other support weapons.

Key issue i found was this and im wondering if someone can help with overcoming it.

Facing rangers has the following issues.   Initial supression is fine, with my doctrine choices i can achieve a high rate of supression.   the initial mg can achive this backed up with a mortar can do damage, problem is the fire up duration.  the squad density of rangers ie in most circumstances is 4-6  incoming damage in minimal to the point there is no negative to clumping.  so they pass the 1st mg and nade it.  I counter nade minimal damge with fire and movement.  2ng mg in a building is taken out quickly which leaves and exposed mortar and lmg squads.  At this point they retreat.  most possibly with less than 50% of the those squads operating at half strength.

I then tried with nebel support,  lag time from order to firing is slow and ineffective.  I don't have access to stuhs but from what ive seen they become main target priority for the rangers with zooks which there always at least 2 of and the remainder continue to deal with support weapons.   In BUA's the tactic i employ is more succesful. Playing slowzos 30+ infantry spam double mortar with HMG and lmg caused 149 kills and ampm inflicted 179 kills in the sam game. But they didn't have fire up.  If we faced similiar situations with rangers kill ratio would be lower and casualty ratio would be higher.  

There is no signifigant opportunity cost. I though the 5 min timer would introduce that, but as a infantry and a airborne player said to me. not an issue, max time such a unit is on the field is 5 min, if thats not the case then they then get a 2nd option.  The cost reduction in thier upgrades is magnified by the fire up capabilty and it no cost for opportunity ability.

I stress im talking from actual play experiance here and this is what i see and i think almost every axis player out there sees the same thing.

[acker]

Battle number?

Back to the infinite-CP problem.

*edit*

Being an idiot. Saw bnumber.

[Unkn0wn]

I've been thinking and i'm going to try a KCH + Ostwind + Shreck strategy.
Thats about 31 population but should be enough to hold off ranger blobs and suicidal m10s!

[AmPmAllied]

KCH fail vs Rangers =/

[Unkn0wn]

They don't, unless you're facing larger amounts but that's why the ostwind is there .

[AmPmAllied]

Maybe KCH need to be 3 Pop again =)

[Nevyen]

Yeah nice idea i'll run kch and grenadier as a company.  Im willing to try that out

you watch though someone in the brains trust will then increase the cost of them:P

[Unkn0wn]

Apex runs a grenadier only company, he's been using only grens ever since he started playing .
And I'll be honest, it doesn't work that well .

[Bonte]

ever since assualt was basically taken out...gren armies suck..the only thing that prevented mass rangers before was assualt...now without it allies just spam all they want