Login

russian armor

USF Urban Assault -Feedback

PAGES (17)down
4 Apr 2019, 14:50 PM
#161
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 5101 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Apr 2019, 14:49 PMLago
I think Rangers are waaay too cheap now, but I never had a problem with their live cost. They're really, really good troops.

Just to clarify, my comments are about Ranger cost about the MOD, not about live.
4 Apr 2019, 15:03 PM
#162
avatar of blancat

Posts: 417

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Apr 2019, 14:46 PMVipper

Compare them with PGs and you will see that they are more cost efficient.

QCQ units have proven difficult to balance and they seem to perform either OP or UP.
Timed abilities would allow QCQ to be balance since it would allow them to perform adequately but for a sort duration.


Why do you compare the Ranger to the PG?

PG is basical unit and Ranger is doctrinal infantry

[Timed abilities would allow QCQ to be balance since it would allow them to perform adequately but for a sort duration]

-> OMGF

Don't make the Ranger fool
No one will use the unit

Ranger is just expensive "walking Target" who can easily be counted

And Ranger has less utility skills and can only be used for limited use



P.S)PG also needs a price buff like Ranger
4 Apr 2019, 15:10 PM
#163
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1232 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Apr 2019, 14:49 PMLago
I think Rangers are waaay too cheap now, but I never had a problem with their live cost. They're really, really good troops.


90 Munitions is cheap now?
Manpower wise they are now where they should be, given their main competition is Paratroopers, which have one more man and more damage (as well as 2x LMG upgrades)
4 Apr 2019, 17:12 PM
#164
avatar of Dead Bear

Posts: 61

add the panzerfusiler flare ability to rear echo after they get rifle nade
4 Apr 2019, 17:27 PM
#165
avatar of addvaluejack

Posts: 194



90 Munitions is cheap now?
Manpower wise they are now where they should be, given their main competition is Paratroopers, which have one more man and more damage (as well as 2x LMG upgrades)


But rangers are much more durable, they have smaller target size (0.8 to 1.0) and damage reduction (10%).
4 Apr 2019, 17:31 PM
#166
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 12584 | Subs: 6



But rangers are much more durable, they have smaller target size (0.8 to 1.0) and damage reduction (10%).

They also have completely zero ways to close in on the target except literally walking up to it and rely purely on that durability.

Even 1.5 armor shocks have smoke and shocks too got a price decrease.

And lastly, you're paying separately for firepower and separately for durability in their case as they are the only assault troops who do not start with SMGs(arguable so are paras, but no one sane considers thompson paras assault troops as they have no tools for that at all and no additional durability).
4 Apr 2019, 17:35 PM
#167
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2128

90 Munitions is cheap now?
Manpower wise they are now where they should be, given their main competition is Paratroopers, which have one more man and more damage (as well as 2x LMG upgrades)


I think Rangers are good on live, and 350 manpower is very good value. Whether it's too good remains to be seen.

Paratroopers have an extra man, but they also have poor received accuracy. Rangers have 0.9 received damage.

Paratroopers have Tactical Assault going for them and that's about it.
4 Apr 2019, 17:49 PM
#168
avatar of addvaluejack

Posts: 194


They also have completely zero ways to close in on the target except literally walking up to it and rely purely on that durability.

Even 1.5 armor shocks have smoke and shocks too got a price decrease.


No off-map smoke? Rangers will have a difficult time...


I have mentioned this problem a few days ago. Rangers are fine in Heavy Cavalry Doctrine.

We could compare Rangers with Obers here:
Rangers have 0.8 RA and 10% damage reduction.
Obers have 0.7 but no damage reduction.

Rangers' M1A1 performs better at close range.
Obers' Kar98k performs better at long range.

They should have similar cost per model. But Rangers cost much less per model in this MOD now.
4 Apr 2019, 18:04 PM
#169
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 12584 | Subs: 6


They should have similar cost per model. But Rangers cost much less per model in this MOD now.

They should have similar cost per model ONLY if the price AND MODEL COUNT is similar.
Obers are not 5 man squad.
Obers also bleed less because they can just sit behind green cover at far range and don't ever have to come close, even with STGs, they'll just ignore opponents cover and their STGs are only slightly worse then LMG at long range, at realistic ranges(aka less then 35), obers with STG will dominate any other infantry in cover or trying to approach them and even if the other infantry did manages to get close, they have nuclear grenade to defend themselves.
4 Apr 2019, 18:30 PM
#170
avatar of addvaluejack

Posts: 194


They should have similar cost per model ONLY if the price AND MODEL COUNT is similar.
Obers are not 5 man squad.
Obers also bleed less because they can just sit behind green cover at far range and don't ever have to come close, even with STGs, they'll just ignore opponents cover and their STGs are only slightly worse then LMG at long range, at realistic ranges(aka less then 35), obers with STG will dominate any other infantry in cover or trying to approach them and even if the other infantry did manages to get close, they have nuclear grenade to defend themselves.


Since Obers have less models than Rangers, every Ranger model should not be more durable than every Ober model. But they have same durability right now, and Obers have higher reinforcement cost.

Why do you assume that all encounters happened in open map? If all encounters happened in open map, Infantry Section with two Brens should be the most expensive infantry in this game.

Why do you assume both units should perform defensively? For offensive scenarios, Rangers are much better since you want to get into pinpoint range (less than 10) which nullify cover bonus totally.
4 Apr 2019, 18:36 PM
#171
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 12584 | Subs: 6



Since Obers have less models than Rangers, every Ranger model should not be more durable than every Ober model. But they have same durability right now, and Obers have higher reinforcement cost.

Obers are NOT rangers.
Obers are NOT close range assault infantry.
Obers do NOT need to expose themselves to direct fire to do their job.

Why do you assume that all encounters happened in open map? If all encounters happened in open map, Infantry Section with two Brens should be the most expensive infantry in this game.

Why do you assume long range LMG infantry bleeds the same as CQC specialist squad with no mobility skills?
Why do you assume 4 man squads should reinforce for similar cost of 5 model squads, when one squad reinforces only up to 3 models and another up to 4?

Why do you assume both units should perform defensively? For offensive scenarios, Rangers are much better since you want to get into pinpoint range (less than 10) which nullify cover bonus totally.

Why do you assume rangers will not lose models by the time they are at that range?
Why do you assume obers will lose even a single model despite sitting behind green cover as they have zero reason to close in?

You're right, Obers do not deserve the durability they have.
4 Apr 2019, 18:40 PM
#172
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1232 | Subs: 2

Boyos please consider the following, when HC was the only USF Commander, how often people did go for the almighty Rangers?
They are just too expensive, even if they can be really good, it's not really worth it over just getting another Riflesquad.
400MP up front is just too much.
4 Apr 2019, 18:55 PM
#173
avatar of addvaluejack

Posts: 194


Obers are NOT rangers.
Obers are NOT close range assault infantry.
Obers do NOT need to expose themselves to direct fire to do their job.


Why do you assume long range LMG infantry bleeds the same as CQC specialist squad with no mobility skills?
Why do you assume they bleed the same?
Why do you assume 4 man squads should reinforce for similar cost of 5 model squads, when one squad reinforces only up to 3 models and another up to 4?


Why do you assume rangers will not lose models by the time they are at that range?
Why do you assume obers will lose even a single model despite sitting behind green cover as they have zero reason to close in?

You're right, Obers do not deserve the durability they have.


Aren't we are comparing STG Obers with Rangers here? Because you mentioned a lot about STG.

If I want my Obers to sit behind green cover instead of assault, why should I pick STG at the first place? The reason that I pick STG is I want to wipe enemy's team weapons as soon as possible so my other units could advance along with Obers. And Rangers perform much better at wiping team weapons.

Yes, I assume that Obers bleed as much as Rangers during these assaulting scenarios.
4 Apr 2019, 19:12 PM
#174
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 12584 | Subs: 6



Aren't we are comparing STG Obers with Rangers here? Because you mentioned a lot about STG.

If I want my Obers to sit behind green cover instead of assault, why should I pick STG at the first place? The reason that I pick STG is I want to wipe enemy's team weapons as soon as possible so my other units could advance along with Obers. And Rangers perform much better at wiping team weapons.

Yes, I assume that Obers bleed as much as Rangers during these assaulting scenarios.

That applies to STGs as well.
They have very decent long range DPS and ignore cover partly.

STG obers are NOT assault troops, they are "I'll hurt you from long range and I'll fucking MURDERFUCK you from mid and close range".
4 Apr 2019, 20:05 PM
#175
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 1467

Since Obers have less models than Rangers, every Ranger model should not be more durable than every Ober model. But they have same durability right now, and Obers have higher reinforcement cost.


Rangers do not have the same durability. They are the only squad in the game to get a 0.9 damage modifier (on top of their received accuracy).
4 Apr 2019, 21:17 PM
#176
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 275

Im somewhat worried that incendiary grenade will give usf simular "just deny cover" that can be used instead of normal nades. And compared to volks, double bar wielding rifles getting on the spitting distance with ability to completely deny previous cover might cause issues.
4 Apr 2019, 21:46 PM
#177
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2363


They also have completely zero ways to close in on the target except literally walking up to it and rely purely on that durability.

Even 1.5 armor shocks have smoke and shocks too got a price decrease.

And lastly, you're paying separately for firepower and separately for durability in their case as they are the only assault troops who do not start with SMGs(arguable so are paras, but no one sane considers thompson paras assault troops as they have no tools for that at all and no additional durability).

They can benefit from other units' smoke, but by themselves they're the only elite infantry with literally zero utility type abilities other than grenades. As you said, no smoke or camo or anything to help them close (on their own) so they do have to be pretty tough.
jump backJump back to quoted post4 Apr 2019, 17:35 PMLago


I think Rangers are good on live, and 350 manpower is very good value. Whether it's too good remains to be seen.

Paratroopers have an extra man, but they also have poor received accuracy. Rangers have 0.9 received damage.

Paratroopers have Tactical Assault going for them and that's about it.

I think 350 is fine given that they have to upgrade thompsons for muni. I was more or less fine with their reinforce cost though, and I don't really see why it was reduced but I don't think it's ridiculous either.

Don't forget about paradrop reinforce from beacons. Super useful and it lets them win fights they'd normal have no chance at, but if you're not careful it turns into a huge manpower sink.
4 Apr 2019, 22:24 PM
#178
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 263

So where is the problem? If games will reveal that 350 is too cheap they will be adjusted to 360 or 370. Either way they will not be spammed, because they come at 3CPs, have high reinforce costs, have to buy the Thompsons on top (SU shock troopers in comparison come right out of the box and have a good performance too) have no AT capabilities and get f...ed at long range or by AI vehicles/tanks. They are even missing a smoke grenade on their own (relying on other US smoke options). They are no 250 manpower early game unit that can be build into almighty allround troopers. Just relax, everything will be fine with them.
4 Apr 2019, 23:15 PM
#179
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 5101 | Subs: 1

The unit itself might not have smoke but that does not mean that they do not have access to smoke.

Both commander with rangers have doctrinal smoke for them and one even allow them to sprint.

In addition R.E. and officers can provide smoke among other things.
4 Apr 2019, 23:45 PM
#180
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2363

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Apr 2019, 23:15 PMVipper
The unit itself might not have smoke but that does not mean that they do not have access to smoke.

Both commander with rangers have doctrinal smoke for them and one even allow them to sprint.

In addition R.E. and officers can provide smoke among other things.

Yes. Point being, you will have to have other infantry squads to support it. That's generally considered balanced and they probably won't be spammed or anything and won't be 100% independent. Maybe even increase the cooldown if you're really worried. They do also come at 3cp so they won't exactly be replacing mainline infantry like old jaegers did.
PAGES (17)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
1v1 Elite Showdown this weekend!

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag Jove
  • Soviets flag VonIvan
uploaded by VonIvan

Board Info

216 posts in the last 24h
1723 posts in the last week
6358 posts in the last month
Registered members: 39778
Welcome our newest member, plums054ta
Most online: 805 users on 28 Oct 2018, 01:04 AM