[2.405] Ranger Vet requirements?

[sighman]

The new slightly lowered vet requirements, I feel, make this unit a tad OP again. I felt, the reason before 2.405 I got rangers was primarily for their potential AI ability (since they can't shoot for shit as AT or AV), and then once they got vet after babysitting them, I would finally earn the rewards of them becoming the super AI/AV units. With the new changes, I think it is too quick now, to gain Vet1 as Rangers and so it basically turns into that immortal creature too early.

I think what they should do, is either revert this change, or better yet, just slightly nerf the benefits they gain from vet.

[Painmuffin]

Am I missing something? I don't recall a change to ranger vet in the balance playtest...

[Kratos]

They always performed very good against half tracks, of course you cannot expect them to wtf pwn tanks.
Indeed, ally infantry gets better and better, but there have been to less games to really pull me on one side so far.

[sighman]

Range Veterancy requirements dropped slightly from 14/28/50 to 12/24/44

Its right there, but I'm sure they meant ranger*.

[Kratos]

Nah you got it all wrong, the riflemans range has to get veterancy too ;)

[hashinshin]

Why would they drop ranger vet ? Rangers are still way too freaking good once vet.

Vet 3 bonuses need to be substantially reduced now that its easier for everyone to reach it...

[Kratos]

That is why we are having this balance playtest, some changes my be very extreme .... so we can tweak them later.

[Harry]

Rangers got thier vet requirements lowered because of the new buff on weapons teams. Rifles also got buffed because of this. Now vet 3 mg42 are extremely possible, even if you blow up a weapon crew the new guys who man it are experts at firing mortars, deploying and reloading mg42, and firing nebels ( i think). I've yet to see if the the weapon team buff is a good thing, but untill then lets play a bit and see how powerful that is before we say if rangers should have lower vet requirements or not. I am in no way saying I dont like that weapon teams got buffed. please dont misinterpret my post.

[Aesar]

vet changes are fine and it would be nice to have units be powerful but not spammable I think there should be a restriction of 2 max ranger squads on the field, to keep it fair on all map types.

[hashinshin]

The problem is a vet 3 ranger squad is unbeatable.

They will give 2 vet 3 STG44 squads a good challenge...

Now that its easier to get it... again... as with riflemen.. 20% accuracy and 50% damage is too much.

[Harry]

again; vet 3 weapon teams will be seen more in games, this counters the recent buffs in vet gain - a vet mg42 will be a pain to handle.


Now that its easier to get it... again... as with riflemen.. 20% accuracy and 50% damage is too much.

but they still die fast. ostwinds, faster p4's, mg42, snipers. its all there for them to die. I dont think its too much yet - as I havent played, but we will see.

[hashinshin]

Offensive vet fallschrimjagers die just as fast as a vet 0 but you don't see people calling them useless.

If a game extends to the point where I have all 4 buildings you can bet your ass that there will be a vet 3 ranger squad or paratrooper squad on the field.

It is OBSCENELY hard to take out full squads of rangers, sure they cost a lot, but they will never fully die and lose the vet.

:lurk:

[Painmuffin]

Ok, I searched "Ranger" and got nothing! That's what I get for being lazy.

Lets see how it "plays" out?

[Dymo]

When fighting against vetted Wehr Infantry now, the retrieval of your de-crewed 57mm, Mortars and or 30cal MG's will be very, very important.

Since no one will use a Vetted Ranger squad to do recovery, it seems quite apparent that more rifles or Engies will need to see later action simply for retrieval duties. :)

[sgb]

Anything that encourages more call-in spam in not a good thing. Weapon teams don't matter when Rangers can ignore suppression, and PE wasn't affected by the weapon team vet buff. They've really increased the spammability of US for 2v2 games. It's really time either a hard cap of 3 for call-ins or a severe spamming penalty was implemented for all infantry, or both even. I'm sick of seeing nothing but tommies, rangers and airborne all game from Allied teams. And I'm sure they're sick of seeing PG spam all game. 2v2's feel like a game of C&C right now.

[Dymo]

They can't ignore Grenades, Mines or Flamethrowers though. ;)

[Harry]

Offensive vet fallschrimjagers die just as fast as a vet 0 but you don't see people calling them useless. thats because theyre not, they're glass cannons. Ever had a falls team ambush a lone rifle squad out capping? its scary. Falls ambush is downright devastating.

Anyways though we have yet to see what this does in game. I think it may be needed now that mg teams will be deadlier than ever.

[sgb]

Do you even know what MG and mortar vet does? Level 1 gives all the damage bonuses. Level 2 and 3 just make them tougher. Many people buy level 1 now anyway, since it's a huge bonus for only 100/20. All this will do is allow vet 2/3 infantry to keep their toughness bonuses when they pick up a weapon. It's honestly more like a bug fix. Even though Wehr is supposed to keep its vet forever, losing the crew of a weapon meant you could never get it back up to even vet 1 again.

[m4sterofMurd3r]

Yes however Whermacht grenades suck, flamer pioneers die before they can kill a single ranger and flame halftracks don't stand a chance due to having to get in either medium or close range to do any damage.

[k0lyan]

I agree, "old" rangers vet was fine.
Us got buffed riflemen, so why ranger should get buffs?

Rangers vs Mg42, fireup+nuclear grenade= dead mg.
Ranger vs grenades: omg they can ignore them, but us player should have good micro.
Ranger vs pio with flamers: thompson smg will eat pio. (from other side wehr need muni for screck,mp44 etc.)

Buff Lmg42, werh need counter vs vetted rifles and rangers:))))

[Demonic Spoon]

Rangers vs Mg42, fireup+nuclear grenade= dead mg.
Ranger vs grenades: omg they can ignore them, but us player should have good micro.
Ranger vs pio with flamers: thompson smg will eat pio. (from other side wehr need muni for screck,mp44 etc.)

They can't ignore nades, they can't just rush up and nade the MG if you have troops standing in front of the MG, and you should always have infantry in front of flamethrowers.

[Harry]

It's honestly more like a bug fix...Level 2 and 3 just make them tougher. ive been reading that vetted support means grabbing other people stuff and being good with it. Is that ok with you? imagine grabbing a 57 at gun with vet 3. Poor shermans. But see, i really havent played enough so i wouldnt know - really no one has played enough to know.

On top of that, if mg's are tougher it means rangers and rifles have a tougher time taking them out no? so the vet is needed. but, i really dont know yet.

[Ravenwild]

Fire-up was nerfed to a 90 cooldown last patch so let's just see how the whole thing plays out.

[bavbav]

man what are you guys talking about?

where do you see mgs and weaposn teams buffs??????????


there is only 1 fix: when u reman neutral wehrmacht weapon you get veterancy if you puchased it on recrewed weapon. so this doesnt work on allied at guns, mrotars, mgs nor does it affect anyone else but wehr.

thsi is a bug fix. this bug basicly made weaposn team veterancy pointless.

go ahead and try vet 3 wepaons teams. they still get completely destroyed by rangers. its doesnt matter......

so nwo that we get to rangers, this vet buff was unnecesary. they infact need zoosk to cost 50 ammo and be abel to repurchase and also fireup need to have 10 or 15% more received dmg.

yet relic buffs ranger vet, hmmm

rifleman change was very needed, its was so hard to gain vet before late game. but rangers?......

i say again, no buffs to mgs ok. you still need to purchase vet for them and it still costs alot so u will never have inf vet, tnak vet and supprot vet. you can always get max 2, more is just way too expensive. so mgs are now even worse vs rangers....

edit: and just mention this because people dont realise:

fireup was nerfed to 90 sec cooldown from 60 sec. however, each level of vet reduces cooldown by 15 sec, so vet 3 ranger or airborne squads ends up wth 45 sec fireup cooldown

this is how much fireup was nerfed..... ofc rangers now get vet easyer so 45 sec fireup even sooner....

[Tseng_Fox]

Wait a couple of days for testing. On paper it seems really OP, but it hasn't been tested in game yet.

I'm going to see how easy it is to achieve vet with rangers.

[Quercus]

Yes it does seem OP.
I don't think it was needed and I also think that the call-in infantry should be limited to stop players replacing the normal infantry with it.

[Tseng_Fox]

What I would like to know is why would any sane person run his Ranger squad upto an MG anyway? Its a bit stupid since your gonna lose guys doing that, so I don't see why rangers need to be buffed just because Wehrmacht MG's got a bugfix.

[yberker]

With buffed wehr t3, pumas-stugs and nebels could counter them very well.

Especially pumas with 7 speed, reduced bazooka damage and 0.75 moving accuracy, they are perfect counters for ranger blobs, and could drain massive mp from US player.

Seems no problem with this very slight buff.

But a received accuracy modifier like inspired assault for fire-up would be perfect in addition.

[Tseng_Fox]

StuGs? counter rangers? are you kidding? Rangers are too fast for Nebelwerfers.

I agree on the Puma though.

[yberker]

ON field test, ranger zooks couldnt penetrate front armor. And they stopped charging ranges quite well. Especially after lvl 2 vet, rangers seem to die quite fast.

Nebels are not hugely effective against them but they distract their movement, and at least they force us player to waste their fire-up to negate supression.

[Demonic Spoon]

StuGs are good early charge breakers. For one, shitty Fire Up AI results in epic squishies if you use your StuG right. For two, even if he avoids that, driving a StuG up in front of their charge will force them to stop, allowing your MGs + long range troops to rip them up.

If you want to do damage to them, I'd use a puma (but be very, very careful with micro)

[hashinshin]

I think heres the difference.

In order to stop 1 ranger squad you suggest using a:

StuG
MG
Long Ranged troops.

What costs more ? Where is the allied player's support? (an ATG to tear that StuG to hell.)

Everyone treats these discussions like its 1 ranger versus the world.

I'm typically fighting 1-2 rangers with riflemen and greyhound or ATG or other support. And I typically have some infantryHTs, 3-4 PG squads (3 man) and a MarderIII.

Its not so clear cut.

[zzSleeper]

The problem is a vet 3 ranger squad is unbeatable.

They will give 2 vet 3 STG44 squads a good challenge...

Now that its easier to get it... again... as with riflemen.. 20% accuracy and 50% damage is too much.

One vet3 grenadier squad with LMG and a flame pio, and I'll show you a retreating or dead vet 3 ranger squad.


yeah but wher nades suck and flamer pio squads die before they even have a chance to kill a single ranger

Correctly placed flame pios dont die to rangers. You position them about 10 yards behind your grenadiers. Rangers with thompsons deal no real damage till they reach the short range, and if he wants to kill your flame pios he has to run through your grenadiers first, taking horrible damage doing so.

[hashinshin]

Why are americans recieving ANOTHER buff though ?

PE got nerfed in EVERY version of this patch, EVERY one. Americans have received nothing but the strafing run tune and then countless buffs.

Are rangers really so gimp that they had to be buffed before the munitions HT, vampire HT, scout car, hummel, ATHT, entire scorched earth doctrine, ect?

This is getting simply obscene.

[Ap0k]

Relic hates PE.

In other news, I hate people who make rants that bear little relation to the topic. Kindly cease.

[Painmuffin]

I tend to disagree- PE is basically Wehrmacht on steroids (and some roid rage as well).

Relic is finally atoning for the countless losses that plagued good american players. PE has to do nothing but get 6 Pgrens out and rush tech to a PiV.

EDIT: I used some rangers today and I can safely say they are not apocalyptic terminator machines. Just as easy to kill, but it takes 1 Pgren or so less to get the next level of veterancy. It's a small buff for the over nerf. Because those of us who use rangers in an intelligent way (not DAS BLOB) got boned because 1/2 the community got nothing... but RANGERS, fire Uped and blobbed to take down everything and anything.

[Sutr]

What costs more ? Where is the allied player's support? (an ATG to tear that StuG to hell.)

you mean the stug or the rest of the units listed?
Because loooking at it rangers are more expensive than a stug so long as your factoring the munis for the thompson upgrade.

400 manpower and 100 munis vs 340 man and 40 fuel. Stug also has less upkeep.

However yes the other units into account the rangers are less however I think demonic spoon meant you would of had all those units anyway because their part of the standard wermacht build.

[zzSleeper]

Relic reduce ranger vet 3 req from 50 volk kills to 46 volk kills and people act like its the end of the world.

[KingzizeM]

People will still complain about Rangers even if they will tune them back to the 1.0 Vcoh .

Relic already did alot of nerfes on the rangers .
SMG damage output reduced
hella expensive to reinforce
zooks do not penetrate hetzers from the front or frontside
accuracy and damage on halftracks is reduced and still complaining that a 400mp and 100mun unit is OP
lol .

The problem of the ranger spam fest WAS the Panzer Elite
because it was the only US doctorine you had a 5% chance of winning against PE .
Relic is busy changing that and with the beta they are doing a fine job .

[shadowolfe]

I would say after some testing that Rangers should not gain vet faster, less because the reduction in vet requirements is significant, but more so because Rangers themselves are already very powerful without vet, with vet 3 they become unstoppable. Although as I said it is not so much how the have been tuned but the fact that they have been reduced, it is a very unnecessary buff, I though we were trying to encourage combined arms! Buffing rangers in any way creates the opposite effect, therefore IMO reverse the ranger buff, it is unneeded and only encourages spam.



Shadowolfe

[Pershing720]

I dissagree Rangers are very expensive to call out and keep alive. Part of the reason airborn is more popular is because paratroopers gain vet faster and stay alive easier. They also reinforce easier. Rangers needed this buff to make infantry a good choice compared to airborn.

[Jaigen]

Part of the reason airborn is more popular is because paratroopers gain vet faster and stay alive easier. They also reinforce easier. Rangers needed this buff to make infantry a good choice compared to airborn.

that's not a part of it at all. the reason why airborne is so popular is that AB do a far better Job at nailing tanks then the rangers. other parts are SR and supply drop

[Pershing720]

Maybe not to you but I like the idea of gaining veterancy faster compared to Rangers. It made me choose airborn everytime.

[sighman]

The reason why I think this was unjustified is because the buff was undue and what made Rangers more special in their own way. Everyone knows that Rangers when they first appear are fairly easy to take out, neither the best against AV or AI. But once they gain veterancy it makes a bigger impact on them in strength, in comparison to a vetted Paratrooper squad or Rifleman squad. Vet1 for Rangers has a bigger impact then Vet1 Riflemen because it means it boosts both AV and AI. And without this buff, it made it much more imperative to babysit your Ranger squad.

[Dymo]

Given the same reinforce costs, as per coh-stats, free zooks and the additional buyable SMG's, for a measley 30 hp per squad advantage, Rangers are a better buy.

I guess one would ask, how does AB armor match up to Infantry Elite?

P.S. And you still have to go back to the Triage center to repair the wounded, so being able to reinforce in the field is great, until the squad(s) get dinged up.

[Pershing720]

I've tested it and still takes Rangers a long time to gain veterancy. I think its perfect now. Airborn may be easier to kill but they make up for it with in the field reinforcement, dropping anywhere, and potent AT weapons.