Allies Still OP?

[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

[acker]

It's a 2-man buffer made up of kevlar, badass, and Elite armor.  

[MistenTHA]

This is a good point, with Rangers you need to cut the squad in half before they really lose any close range power.  Versus something like KCH, FG42s, etc, all losses directly affect the close combat ability of the squad.

Rangers don't work that way. They are quirky. They keep the special weapon they have. If you kill both bazooka men, then 4 SMG rangers will be left with no bazookas.

If you kill 4 SMG rangers, only 2 bazooka men will be left with no SMGs.

That is why when you pick up LMGs and Shreks with SMG rangers, they never deploy the new guns. Look closely. They only hold their SMGs and Bazookas.

So if you have a sniper, pick off the SMG rangers first, and you immediately start weakening their anti-inf power.

[DiBBs]

Rangers are a bunch of softies, they love their mothers.

Fallschirms on the other hand don't have mothers, they are made in a sweatshop.

[acker]

Rangers no longer have their bazookas as a default upgrade. I love this change for exactly the reasons you stated, Rangers were unpredictable/unreliable when they had bazookas+SMGs. And some more reasons, but that certainly was one.

I'm pretty sure that the Ranger SMG is counted as a heavy weapon, sort of like the bazooka. Which explains why the bazooka/SMG thing is so weird on AT/AP Rangers. But I don't know for sure.

I'm pretty sure that with only-SMG Rangers, the SMG gets handed off to the next man in line, sort of like the LMG. But this really needs to be tested...

More research!

[MistenTHA]

Rangers no longer have their bazookas as a default upgrade. I love this change for exactly the reasons you stated, Rangers were unpredictable/unreliable when they had bazookas+SMGs. And some more reasons, but that certainly was one.

Oh yes, ok. Didn't know that. Then yea the SMGs would keep getting passed on instead. But is it really a big issue? When you were up against KCH in EiR, you'd use a tank to clear em out, it'd be madness to use infantry against them since you'd take crazy losses. Same case for rangers here. Since they don't have bazookas as default it's safe to use a tank or even a puma.

[UnLimiTeD]

A fullhealth Rangersquad, deployed by a halftrack to close range, against Fallschirmjägers with FG42 in green cover, will also die without killing a man.
Likely not even inflicting visible damage.
So that example just shows; You should not charge enemies in cover.

[acker]

Oh yes, ok. Didn't know that. Then yea the SMGs would keep getting passed on instead. But is it really a big issue? When you were up against KCH in EiR, you'd use a tank to clear em out, it'd be madness to use infantry against them since you'd take crazy losses. Same case for rangers here. Since they don't have bazookas as default it's safe to use a tank or even a puma.

I'm not disagreeing with you, attacking an anti-infantry unit with infantry is suicide. But the price probably needs adjustment nontheless, if only to reflect this newfound utility.

For instance, Ranger SMGs (long time ago) were like 180 Munitions, I think. Then Rangers got back their default bazookas. Then the devs had a hard time adjusting bazooka+SMG Rangers for obvious reasons, and eventually dropped SMG prices to 140. Now Rangers no longer have bazookas as a default upgrade. So some sort of price increase may be in order.

Meh, more testing. For the third time.

[UnLimiTeD]

180 Munitions essentially pays for fireup.

[Baine]

They should cost a tad more than KCH honestly. Atm you can buy 4 Kch without PP and 4 Rangers without PP. That makes Rangers harder to beat.

[Unkn0wn]

Now Rangers no longer have bazookas as a default upgrade

Yar, because unlike last time, there's actually a mechanism in place that prevents them from getting the crap spammed out of them.
That was the biggest problem with them before.