[balance] Elite Armor Rangers + Vet = OP?

[Wischmopp]

All i read about them is they just walk about anything infantry related now, if they have the Thompson.

They either seem to need a cost increase or a clear nerf. Or both.

Together with their great VET they seem to be the most overpowered unit in the game now.

[nichtganz]

yeah they roll on mp44's which is just wtf imba.

[armen]

damn really ? i have yet to see rangers charge at me with Thompsons :P

[Skyhawk]

They are tough now sure, but I wouldn't say this is bad. Infantry now has the buff it sorely needed and when you mention they roll mp44's, that's PG mp44s. A 255 MP unit with 75 munition upgrade should get rolled by a 400 MP unit with 100 munition upgrade shouldn't it?

I'd say the rangers are now one of the toughest inf units in the game when veteran, alongside officer led british, commandos and vet 2 or 3 Stormtroopers and KCH. Its not like they are in a league of their own. Shouldn't infantry company get strong inf?

[Wischmopp]

i heard with thompsons they even walk over VET 3 STORMS WITH MP 44

Thats IMBA


Of course they should be good, but not totally outclassing everything.

2 MP44 Pgrens should at least be on even terms with them, because they cost 110 MP and 50 munitions more and need ressources spent to be even build.

[KingzizeM]

Rangers roll over everything now , even with their eyes closed .

Even a King tiger is not safe , i took one of them out in like 15 seconds with vet 3 rangers . 1 squad was carrying a piat en a schreck who i nabbed from the battlefield)
Those piats do insane damage .

But hey we wanted them to be buffed right ? well here they are , all beefcake and stuff .

[nichtganz]

I left a few games because of them, they make me vomit.

[bananfiend07]

Wischmopp, have you even played the game yet? Because I'm seeing a lot of threads pop up where you try to present imbalance, but frankly you sound like you haven't played a single game, and you're just kicking up dust. Seeding baseless rumor and conjecture.

Rangers dont walk all over storms, especially without thompsons. They can certainly compete 1on1 vs storm troopers, but storms are LESS EXPENSIVE than rangers and can benefit from permanent verteran upgrades.

Storms and rangers are not meant to be mirrored by each other.

[tuffy!]

wanting them buffed is one thing. from what i read in the forums, once again relic overdid it. reminds of the old croc.

[bananfiend07]

Yeah, well from what I've PLAYED, they aren't obviously imbalanced. They cost a lot, they still don't take heavy armor head on, and they can deal with infantry after a 100 munitions upgrade.

[kingofshao]

From what I played as well, they are FAR from IMBA.

I think everyones just used to seeing rangers die from a light wind :P

[chuckles22]

I think they are a little to strong... I have surrounded rangers with assault greniders with the +1 man... the rangers did retreat after killing 3 men... 4 squads surrounding it should have been dead...

[Gamesguy]

Wow people are prone to overexaggeration. The new rangers are no tougher than vet 2 storms(390 hp vs 380 hp).

Please stop making up crap. I agree with vet the new rangers are OP, I suggest nerfing their vet.

[Wischmopp]

Thats what is meant, with the thompson upgrade and vet 3, not even vet 3 Knights cross might stand a chance.

If u build nothing but rangers, maybe a 57 or 2, all the veterancy adds up and after a while there just is no counter. add a howie maybe.

how is anyone supposed to stop that?

[kingofshao]

400mp, + re-enforcing, +100 mun and the time effort and micro to keep em alive = a few vet 3 kch's :P

[Wischmopp]

bs@ king, there is no logic in your post, sorry to say, don´t take it personal

[chuckles22]

@gamesguy
ok so they werent surrounded but i flanked them from 2 sides and had them engaged from with 2 squads the front so but they were all mp44 assault grens.

so they weren't 100% surrounded I'm sorry my bad you win i loose... -_-

[Gamesguy]

@gamesguy
ok so they werent surrounded but i flanked them from 2 sides and had them engaged from with 2 squads the front so but they were all mp44 assault grens.

so they weren't 100% surrounded I'm sorry my bad you win i loose... -_-

I call bullshit. The new rangers are no tougher than vet 2 storms, and vet 2 storms died to 2 bar rifles easilly enough.

MP44s> bar rifles.

[kingofshao]

I should have worded that better, while I do agree that there vet should possibly be toned down now that they are decent when vanilla,a I find the cost of getting them, re-enforcing them and keeping them alive for so long SHOULD give you an awesome unit, probably not AS awesome though.

[chuckles22]

i swear thats what happened... they WOULD NOT DIE... plus rangers have more health and weren't fired up... maybe i was unlucky but that those moments staring at the screen with them not dieing stuck with me...

[Pyro Paul]

this is what you guys all where wishing for.

1.71 rangers with Vet3 was Ungodly powerful. it was the Most powerful infintry In game. and with 100 munitions Tommies they where On better than KCH and Stormies with Mp44s. their Vetrency is what made them elite.



but every noob complained, Vanilla CoH rangers where too weak. weakiest infintry in the game! imbaimbaimba! i want a buff for the rangers!!

and now look what we get. rangers which are good out of the box and Gods of the Battlefield with vetrency.


all that really needed to be fixed was to make Vetrency for rangers Easier to atain. but nope, too many threads about complaints about how rangers need to be buffed.

[bananfiend07]

Oh for FFS rangers are not that extreme. I've seen a lot of them since the release of the vanilla factions, and I've killed a lot of them since they. It's a fad, and some people just havent adjusted.

They are good, but they don't just destroy anything and everything.

Stop exaggerating.

I'm more afraid of mass panzershrecks and MP44s than I am of mass rangers. Give me a break...

[Falaris]

Well. The Rangers now has the armor of the Vet2 axis troops.

However, they still also have the defensive bonuses from their old veterancy, as well as their offensive bonuses, undiminished. They basically get the best features of riflemen and of veteran axis troops in one neat package.

Can't really say wether they're OP or not but they certainly seem rather good.

[KS1]

i think for 400 mp that's fine. look at storms, people often forget that invisible units are units that cannot by shot at

storms are priceless, capable of dealing with all threat types. they also come with the magnificent bundled nade... priceless

now the rangers (more expensive) are a little better than storms (not really even) and people complain?

come on i had enough of rangers getting pwned by motorbikes, enough.

[SirNick]

Something some folks are forgetting and some folks have just mentioned is that we're talking about veteran Rangers. Vanilla Rangers do have simply the same armor class as Vet 2 Axis infantry, but Allied veterancy amplifies that a whole lot further.

Vet 1 -- 15% accuracy bonus for Rangers, 20% less accuracy towards shooting Rangers.
Vet 2 -- 25% less cooldown, 25% less supression rate, additional 15% less damage taken.
Vet 3 -- 20% extra accuracy bonus for Rangers, 50% damage buff

So, in total, Vet 3 Rangers get a 38% accuracy bonus, 50% damage bonus offensively. For Thompsons, that means they have 100% accuracy at short range (75% * 1.38) with 50% extra damage with a shorter cooldown.

Infantry elite armor usually reduces damage by 25%; the Vet 2 bonus means that (0.75 * 0.85) 63.75% damage actually is taken by Rangers, that is, if the weapon hits in the first place due to the 20% accuracy penalty.

By comparison, Vet 3 Stormtroopers with MG44s only get the 25% damage reduction from Infantry_elite armor and a 20% health boost, none of that accuracy modifying jazz.

Vet 3 Rangers shoot more consistently, take less damage, are less likely to get hit, and hit harder when they shoot. That's the issue.

[yberker]

Against rangers, t1-t3 PE strategy with 4 man stg44 PG squads seems quite fine.

But main problem is they are way op against wehrmacht.



To counter rangers with wehrmacht,

How about to give 2 weapon STG44 pack to sturmtroops in T3 and for 50muni?

They can counter rangers quite well now. Also PE has stg44 way early than wehrmacht t3, and they has 4 stg44 for 75muni per squad.

Also buffing LMG42's in someway could be useful.

Limitting their number to 3-4 will be helpful too.

In addition, making armor a viable alternative means less rangers in battlefield, pershing cap have to be 2 and calliope 6 cp for it.

[Wischmopp]

I played games where I simply run over my (experienced! )enemy with the unbuffed rangers as if was a walk in the park...

Also I played games where my opponent mindlessly spammed vanilla rangers against vet 3 Knights Cross and LMG grenadiers backed up by mortars and MG, he retreated reinforced and kept coming back with no problem and even occasionaly added a ranger unit to his forces and gained lots of veterancy, the only thing that fucked him up was his buddy being killed and my ally arriving with tigers........

Rangers were very good before, all they needed was an zook buff. Now they WILL be godlike.

They should cost 500+ MP and get a cost and time increase for reinforcement in stormtrooper range now. (good men are hard to replace, after all)


These are 6 diehard mf with zooks out of the box and some evil thompson guns (which is not that hard to get for all your ranger squads during game) and right now they even come with dragon skin armor and get veterancy that rocks the battlefield. Finally they may even lay mines and defenses. Ultimate versatility. Lastly, u don´t even need to spend ressources beside CP to get them, which is not true for most other infantry. Teching to get KCH is a pain in the ass. Rangers come to u like a warm summerwind.

They ARE the last word in infantry now. So they should have an extraordinarily high but justifiable cost.

[Wischmopp]

No, they did never need a nerf before. They needed a light buff to the bazooka.

They should be awesome against infantry too.

But at a cost!!!!!!!!!



Goddammit, will somebody ever get me right? lol

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Flamethrowers are your friend against any kind of elite infantry.

It's always hilarious to Force Retreat the thompson squad.

[Frosty]

Rangers are incredibly tough against opponents who rely solely on infantry. And I believe that infantry company always lacked the ability to dominate enemy infantry. Why do you want to take it away from them again? I do believe that Rangers are close to being overpowered, but they still require you to spend an additional 100 munitions in order to get the best out of them.

I have used Rangers myself against an enemy who was playing Wehrmacht and these guys singlehandedly destroyed his infantry in close combat. After a short time, he realized that Rangers are still vulnerable to grenades, mortars, flamethrowers and especially tank guns. Just don't try to counter rangers directly with grenadiers or MGs. Use heavy weapons and they will melt away like riflemen.

[Wischmopp]

I mostly used infantry company in my team games as allies and came up as winner 80%.

Rangers were pretty dominating before if u manage to get them the thompson early.

Anybody who knows when to retreat his troops and come back with vet will dominate the enemy with rangers even without the elite armor thing.

[RedOnesGoFasta]

In a real game there is going to be quite fewer Vet 3 ranger squads than vet 3 storms. Not only b/c of how each side gets vet, but once one ranger squad gets to vet 3 it will be getting the most kill shots while the green squads will have less. It still may need to be toned down, but I would say only the defensive vet and no more then a 5-10% decrease.

Also take into account what you are giving up to get rangers. Pershing, Calliope, AWM, strafing run, insta drop and flank AT guns, and airborne. Rangers are the only combat buff the Infantry Company get to Infantry. (I guess you could count defensive operations since it could help you in a fight, but only if you are defending)

[Wischmopp]

Well u get the infamous 105 howitzers and keep shelling his HQ and killing everything that retreats from fighting the rangers.

[BiteMeAgain]

Here is something I think they need to change, when a ranger squad vetted, then they should get elite armor. What they really need is HP buff and bazooka accuracy buff, and a little easier to vet like rifles (not sure if they are the same but rifleman tend to vet faster than rangers as far as I observed, but I could be wrong).

So, vet 1 gives them speed buff, vet 2 gets elite armor, vet 3 get damage buff, that sounds more right. As right now, they cost less than tommies and yet a lot more effective.

Ok, one more thing, this is another example that CoH units tend to get either OVERBUFFED, or OVERNURFED, M10, Croc, StuG, now we have rangers. :donny:

[Rifleman89]

Anyone know or test if the elite armor on Rangers gives them the increased flames vulnerability or is that just a 'feature' saved for axis only?

[AntiCommie]

I havent used them against Storms yet, but they roll volks like nothing. 1 matchup I had 1 Tommie Ranger run into 2 k98 volks. I lost 1 man, he lost 1 squad and 4 men. The battle took like 5 seconds. I was vet1 or 2 after that. Next time I run into 3 volks 2 with mp40s, and 1 k98. I lost 2 men, lots of wounded, killed all (He never retreated). Now I was vet 3, went back to base healed and spent 60 to reinforce. Next battle I had 3 squads with tommies and zookas, and I completely dominated his base. I lost 2 men to a puma, and 2-3 to the MG nests. Between 3 Rangers and 2 offmap strikes, his base was gone.

I dont think they need to lose the armor, but they do need a HP nerf. Giving them less HP will allow flames and explosives to beat them easier. This will also let Rangers still beat other infantry (Other then KCH, FJ+storm?) pretty easily, as they should. Their zooka's still are weak, and it seems their role is Anti infantry/Vehicle.

[Wischmopp]

They should just cost 500-550 MP, thats a price that fits to their effectiveness better.

And higher reinforcement cost.

And higher pop cap.

[0mar]

Riflespam --> Rangers --> WSC/MP (depending on what's needed) is literally unbeatable. VS a good player using this strategy above in vanilla is already tough as balls to beat. You need a medic bunker spitting out free squads to stay in the ball-game. You can't tech at all, because he'll have the entire map by the time you're done teching (thanks to constant on-field presence) and mines everywhere with the infantry company defensive OPs. Plus, even in the best scenario, your puma won't win back any map control because of the sheer amount of Rifles/Rangers. It'll be backing up more often than not.

In OF, forget it, it's impossible to beat. Axis has no damaging anti-infantry weapon until T4 (MP44s) and the few options in T2-T3 are lackluster at best. Rangers + Vet is just sick, two of them with Vet 2 (very easy to get now too) can absolutely decimate an entire force of Grens/Volks.

FYI, most of my 20 losses came from exactly this strategy. It's so incredible to defeat against a good player.

[Wischmopp]

The only hope right now would be the buffed nebels, but until u get those, u will have lost map control most of the time already

[Gamesguy]

Nebels dont do shit, panzergrenadier spam with a mortar HT is the only way to beat it, and only because its equally overpowering.