Login

russian armor

Why was thompson riflemen never a thing?

24 Apr 2022, 18:04 PM
#21
avatar of rumartinez89

Posts: 466

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Apr 2022, 20:40 PMKoRneY


Sorry, you'll still have to explain making a squad shit at close range and long range would serve a point


How would it be shit at close range? It would be worse than Cavalry Rifleman but that wouldn't be the correct comparison since I said I want Thompsons instead of Bars on Regular Rifleman. They would be quite a bit better until about range 20. So I am giving up the long range of the bar for better short range which is where Rifleman should be fighting anyways while still maintaining the ability to snare.

EDIT: Just to clear up my thought process, the Thompson upgrade I am talking about would be unique to Rifle company(remove halftrack). Since the commander comes with mines, sandbags, flares and fire-up for Rifleman I
am proposing 2 Thompson since any more would probably make the commander OP, however 3 might be ok. Fire up would allow you to close the distance so the long distance damage of BAR would be irrelevant and Flares for attack/flank planning.
24 Apr 2022, 18:39 PM
#22
avatar of Willy Pete

Posts: 156



5 grease guns, upgrading 2 grease guns into 2 Thompsons. Very dangerous CQC squad. Also comes with an AT satchel for 'some reason'.

They have it cuz they arent that dangerous compared to most other cqc squads... Instead of being ferocious like tommy paras they get a vehicle deterrent

U could switch it to an AT rifle nade if its rly a big deal, but im not so sure that would be a nerf
24 Apr 2022, 22:09 PM
#23
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 587



How would it be shit at close range? It would be worse than Cavalry Rifleman but that wouldn't be the correct comparison since I said I want Thompsons instead of Bars on Regular Rifleman. They would be quite a bit better until about range 20. So I am giving up the long range of the bar for better short range which is where Rifleman should be fighting anyways while still maintaining the ability to snare.

EDIT: Just to clear up my thought process, the Thompson upgrade I am talking about would be unique to Rifle company(remove halftrack). Since the commander comes with mines, sandbags, flares and fire-up for Rifleman I
am proposing 2 Thompson since any more would probably make the commander OP, however 3 might be ok. Fire up would allow you to close the distance so the long distance damage of BAR would be irrelevant and Flares for attack/flank planning.


+1

On a side note, reading this makes my heart ache remembering how WFA factions got barely any commanders at all compared to Ost and Sov.
24 Apr 2022, 22:44 PM
#24
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 613



How would it be shit at close range? It would be worse than Cavalry Rifleman but that wouldn't be the correct comparison since I said I want Thompsons instead of Bars on Regular Rifleman. They would be quite a bit better until about range 20. So I am giving up the long range of the bar for better short range which is where Rifleman should be fighting anyways while still maintaining the ability to snare.

EDIT: Just to clear up my thought process, the Thompson upgrade I am talking about would be unique to Rifle company(remove halftrack). Since the commander comes with mines, sandbags, flares and fire-up for Rifleman I
am proposing 2 Thompson since any more would probably make the commander OP, however 3 might be ok. Fire up would allow you to close the distance so the long distance damage of BAR would be irrelevant and Flares for attack/flank planning.


I suppose fire-up makes it slightly more viable if you're charging grens or volks but 3 garands won't win at anything @ range and 2 thompsons will still get chewed up by anything dedicated short range, while at the same time not being able to defend itself properly against anything else that charges it, especially if it's a cqc unit.

Imo mixing ranges or even weapon types on a squad just leaves you with a squad that can't do anything properly
24 Apr 2022, 22:52 PM
#25
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Apr 2022, 22:08 PMJilet


I mean, don't the triple zooks do the same damage as 2 schrecks while costing more, having less pen and have to hit 3 times rather than 2 times to do the same thing while also dropping less.

As Sky said, Rangers pick up better bazookas than other squads.
Overall, one salvo can do up to 300 damage, pen chances vary on the target. From my experience, triple zook Rangers always force a vehicle to move the moment you see them, while double bazookas can be sustained for some time, and PSchrecks will mostly be a threat when the second salvo hits.
For Rangers, even if the first salvo only did 100-200 damage, the threat of the second salvo dealing 300 followed by a single ATG shot is quite large.
24 Apr 2022, 23:30 PM
#26
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1442

Sanders once said the 10 pop stayed due to triple zooks. Which logically in turn means that AI Rangers could be worth only 9 population, but well.

Overall they are an okay squad, but bland in their design and gameplay.


Stupidest argument possible. If actually using zook rangers to some great effect except for having them parked near the points of interest to defend against tank dives, then yeah, but assaulting anything with triple zooks means that only a slight micro is needed to keep the tank out of harms way and bleed rangers. Of course, noobs can still fall for the smoke cover sprint combo and claim how sprinting rangers with zooks are OP, but that's mostly a 4v4, lower rank problem.

Since I play with rangers a lot, I tested them plenty of times. You can forget triple BAR on them, even if the drop chance was 0%. For some reason, 180 muni upgrade is worse at 0-20 range than a 90 muni one.
The only way they can win against obers or falls later on in the game is if you somehow manage to teleport within 5 range of them. Which is not difficult in 1v1 I guess, but 2v2+ downright impossible.

God forbid Sander nerfed fussies, which he always spammed and blobbed when I played against him.

A squad that can:
a) Run'n'Gun perfectly
b) Snare from across the map
c) Give sight
d) Give even more sight with flare
e) Great nade
f) In amazing commanders

but when I tested rangers and made a post on how they lost to other elite units at all ranges except extra close range (and only if you charge over yellow cover constantly); coupled with the fact that the only utility they get is a nade. For CP3, 10 pop and 350 manpower, nobody in their right mind can claim that rangers are not a UP unit. Not in a sense that the tommy rangers are weak, because they are not. Tommies can shred everything at close range. But in a sense that the performance does not reflect the price.

Rant over
MMX
25 Apr 2022, 04:06 AM
#27
avatar of MMX

Posts: 997 | Subs: 1



Since I play with rangers a lot, I tested them plenty of times. You can forget triple BAR on them, even if the drop chance was 0%. For some reason, 180 muni upgrade is worse at 0-20 range than a 90 muni one.
The only way they can win against obers or falls later on in the game is if you somehow manage to teleport within 5 range of them. Which is not difficult in 1v1 I guess, but 2v2+ downright impossible.


Out of curiosity and since you seem to have tested them frequently; what's your take on the carbine-to-garand weapon swap Rangers got with the last patch?

It seems to me that the long-range capabilities didn't really improve too much to be noticeable or useful, while the loss of short-range DPS might have been enough to put them at a disadvantage vs other CQC squads at mid to close range.
I'd argue that this change didn't help the unit, but since I haven't had the opportunity to test Rangers much yet I'd like to hear what others think about this.
25 Apr 2022, 04:35 AM
#28
avatar of Selvy289

Posts: 366

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2022, 04:06 AMMMX


Out of curiosity and since you seem to have tested them frequently; what's your take on the carbine-to-garand weapon swap Rangers got with the last patch?

It seems to me that the long-range capabilities didn't really improve too much to be noticeable or useful, while the loss of short-range DPS might have been enough to put them at a disadvantage vs other CQC squads at mid to close range.
I'd argue that this change didn't help the unit, but since I haven't had the opportunity to test Rangers much yet I'd like to hear what others think about this.


Don't play the game much any more but I did play around with un-upgrade rangers when the patch came out.

Don't know how good they were before the patch but in my opinion they are good against basic infantry. Once you start fighting elite infantry, your in trouble and should get Thompson's instead so overall they are not that great in terms of cost and pop if you think they are going to be good at range.

I remember throwing obers against rangers and had them engage at max range vet 0 and 3, it's quite even but would cost the rangers more in reinforcement cost. That's without the lmg on the obers so I didn't bother trying with lmg obers.

Edit: Best conclusion is that un-upgraded rangers are between basic and elite status like with obers, you have to upgrade at some point.
MMX
25 Apr 2022, 05:19 AM
#29
avatar of MMX

Posts: 997 | Subs: 1



Don't know how good they were before the patch but in my opinion they are good against basic infantry. Once you start fighting elite infantry, your in trouble and should get Thompson's instead so overall they are not that great in terms of cost and pop if you think they are going to be good at range.


Yeah, agree pretty much and that's also the problem I have with that weapon change. Thompsons should be the most logical upgrade for Rangers in almost any scenario, unless you're somehow forced into Zooks as a stop gap measure. And here the extra close range DPS those carbines had is much more valuable than a bit better long range performance, since you'd preferably be fighting mid to close range engagements anyway.
Now the numbers don't seem to indicate a very drastic performance loss (~25-10% between 0-10 m roughly) and Thompsons should be responsible for the majority of the DPS in that range either way, but I wonder how people perceive this during actual gameplay.
25 Apr 2022, 08:54 AM
#30
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3459 | Subs: 1

Rangers probably miss a smoke grenade to close the distance, like shock troops.
25 Apr 2022, 09:36 AM
#31
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1442

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2022, 04:06 AMMMX


Out of curiosity and since you seem to have tested them frequently; what's your take on the carbine-to-garand weapon swap Rangers got with the last patch?

It seems to me that the long-range capabilities didn't really improve too much to be noticeable or useful, while the loss of short-range DPS might have been enough to put them at a disadvantage vs other CQC squads at mid to close range.
I'd argue that this change didn't help the unit, but since I haven't had the opportunity to test Rangers much yet I'd like to hear what others think about this.


I'd lie if I said that I tested stock Rangers without upgrades before and now, but what I did do, is play with them a lot. And I do mean, A LOT (90% of my games are Heavy Cav in 3v3). So... I've played enough times with both carbines and garands in real in-game scenarios to know the difference.

By the time they come out, the new M1 Garands are better than the older carbines. You won't win confrontations with vetted upgraded mainlines cover to cover but at least now you can take down a model or two on longer ranges (mostly medium). Still, the change was mostly a gimmick. I mean, I've put tons of replays on here, and I think 95% of them are me playing Heavy Cavalry and I always play with rangers. Using rangers without tommies or zooks or captain is unadvised.
Rangers with carbines were close range, but most of the maps favor mid-long range engagements, and thus you need to use the no-smoke-rangers like bulls. Just rush and hope for the best. Like I've said, Rangers are best with tommies, no doubt. BARs are trash on them and zooks are situational. Stock rangers are just a no-no in anything beyond 1v1. In 1v1 I think they can pass as the number of entities is not large, so engagements last longer than in teamgames, and these longer lasting engagements are more likely to be medium-long range cover to cover where I think the new Carbine is better.
In teamgames you mostly need a lot of DPS to force retreats first, as the population you're going against is 200+ ... + arty + indirects + ....
25 Apr 2022, 11:44 AM
#32
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 871 | Subs: 6

Rangers are pretty awful in 1v1 but can be nice in team games. I find the hardest thing about Rangers is their timing. As USF you will already have 3x RIfles, an officer and a rear echelon. So getting a 6th Squad, the Rangers, ends up being enormous manpower bleed. So I usually only get Rangers if I lose a squad and need to replace it (or in team games where you can get an early mortar and not just lose all map control). With other factions you can more build HMG's earlier on, so getting elite infantry later on is stronger and easier.
25 Apr 2022, 13:28 PM
#33
avatar of rumartinez89

Posts: 466

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2022, 22:44 PMKoRneY

Imo mixing ranges or even weapon types on a squad just leaves you with a squad that can't do anything properly


I have to hard disagree with that statement, PF and Paratroopers literally disprove your point.

The best close range units aren't great because all the weapons are CQC focused, they are great due to a good combination of smoke/cloak/durability/ability. For this argument lets stick to Allied units since this issue is seen more on the allied side. Shocks are great due to smoke and extreme durability(armor+6man), Airborne PPSH for cloak and smoke while also having ok durability due to 6 man. I think most would agree Assault Guards aren't as good since they only have durability and have no way to actually close in.

But looking at it from a DPS point of view they are every bit as strong if not stronger than the Airborne PPSH despite only having 3 Thompsons. IF we put them in their optimal DPS range (0-10) for both I am pretty sure Assaults Guards would win most of the time due to the weapon switching feature/bug. Since the DPS is concentrated in the 3 models, as the models drop their performance barely falls off until the 4th model drop whereas the Airborne PPSH would lose around 17% with each model.

This is similar to Paratroopers in that they don't lose much DPS until the 3rd model however Paras are still significantly better due to Tactical Assault allowing for instant wipes which reinforces the combination I was talking about earlier.

What I am proposing is literally a USF Fussi. Thompsons can't be dropped just like G43, both have flares, sprint, snare while the rifleman would also be able to build sandbags and throw down mines. Also the in game 2-thompson upgrade only takes 1 weapon slot so you can even put a BAR on them to make you happy. At that point they would be Fussi on steroids. That is why I was unsure of proposing a 3 Thompson upgrade for both slots which would still be mix and matching but would create the best mainline CQC in the game.

For those worrying about balance it would only be in one commander(Rifle Company) and fairly expensive muni wise. So upgrading all of them would be quite an investment and they would still have a weakness at long range. However at close-mid they would dominate and force enemy to try something different.
25 Apr 2022, 16:20 PM
#34
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 613

Out of all the units in the game, you picked one that hardly ever gets chosen over the lmg upgrade, and the other is a unit that basically gets stomped by every thing that looks at it until it gets their g43s, which really doesn't apply to rifles since they're quite capable early game if they can close the distance.

But, you win! I personally prefer specialized infantry units in their roles but I suppose that makes me wrong in your eyes.
25 Apr 2022, 17:12 PM
#35
avatar of rumartinez89

Posts: 466

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2022, 16:20 PMKoRneY
Out of all the units in the game, you picked one that hardly ever gets chosen over the lmg upgrade,


Don't mean to drag on but my first statement was purely about mixed weapons, LMG Para are actually the mixed range upgrade since the carbines are close range focused. Yet like you said, LMG upgrade is the preferred upgrade despite that.

Shifting topics, the Rangers probably are the unit that should have gotten double LMG with their rifle profile it would have synergized quite well along with their great rec acc.
26 Apr 2022, 05:26 AM
#36
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 353



Rifle Company used to have vet I riflemen call-ins off the bat and rifle flamers. This was not missed by anyone except meta abusers. I think this has influenced Rifle Company ever since.


Not true. I miss when the E8 was fun to use 😢
26 Apr 2022, 22:56 PM
#37
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 608

Rangers are pretty awful in 1v1 but can be nice in team games. I find the hardest thing about Rangers is their timing. As USF you will already have 3x RIfles, an officer and a rear echelon. So getting a 6th Squad, the Rangers, ends up being enormous manpower bleed. So I usually only get Rangers if I lose a squad and need to replace it (or in team games where you can get an early mortar and not just lose all map control). With other factions you can more build HMG's earlier on, so getting elite infantry later on is stronger and easier.



Agreed with this. Its not like Soviets where I can go Maxims, hit 2CP and then start pumping out Elite Infantry all day. The way USF is set up currently with its Tech Structure doesn't allow for Rangers or Airborne. If I already have Two-Three Rifleman Squads, a Rear Echelon, and an Officer I am pretty much good in the infantry department.

Rangers will bleed your MP dry, they were much more useful when they had 10% damage reduction as they didn't bleed as much. They are essentially more expensive Rifleman now with some gimmicks on them that aren't needed.

This is also one of the reasons why you see Pathfinder spam, even though they are worse than Rifleman, you could use them as a Rifle replacement. For Rangers to work they would have to be available at T0 and designed specifically around that like Panzerfusiliers. For example starting as a 4 man squad, Thompson upgrade would add 5th man to the squad or Unlocking Major would add 5th man to the Ranger Squad.
27 Apr 2022, 11:16 AM
#38
avatar of rumartinez89

Posts: 466




Agreed with this. Its not like Soviets where I can go Maxims, hit 2CP and then start pumping out Elite Infantry all day. The way USF is set up currently with its Tech Structure doesn't allow for Rangers or Airborne. If I already have Two-Three Rifleman Squads, a Rear Echelon, and an Officer I am pretty much good in the infantry department.

Rangers will bleed your MP dry, they were much more useful when they had 10% damage reduction as they didn't bleed as much. They are essentially more expensive Rifleman now with some gimmicks on them that aren't needed.

This is also one of the reasons why you see Pathfinder spam, even though they are worse than Rifleman, you could use them as a Rifle replacement. For Rangers to work they would have to be available at T0 and designed specifically around that like Panzerfusiliers. For example starting as a 4 man squad, Thompson upgrade would add 5th man to the squad or Unlocking Major would add 5th man to the Ranger Squad.


What about making the Ranger squad an upgrade to rifleman similar to the dozer for the sherman. It could unlock at CP2/3 and would be a straight improvement to the squad in rec acc and damage while maintaining 5man squad. It would probably be better to switch back to the Para Carbine profile so the upgrade causes the Ranger-Rifleman to play the same. Would be easier for user and enemy to understand how and where to engage.
29 Apr 2022, 15:17 PM
#39
avatar of Lady Xenarra

Posts: 881



Not true. I miss when the E8 was fun to use 😢

Fun and up against Battlegroup JP4, cloaked moving raketens & schreckvolks.
30 Apr 2022, 19:03 PM
#40
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 353


Fun and up against Battlegroup JP4, cloaked moving raketens & schreckvolks.


Just drive around the shrek blobs 🤷‍♀️

The real danger was mines because you were always moving the E8('s)
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

220 users are online: 220 guests
23 posts in the last 24h
179 posts in the last week
682 posts in the last month
Registered members: 33957
Welcome our newest member, momente-einfangen
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM