|
USF wise, it's really good, on virtue of their vehicle crews.
Pershing has low health but high lethality vs Infantry.
Jackson is a bit too strong, but it's the only stock TD.
Upgunned Sherman regular shells are only a minor upgrade from the Stock Sherman. (minor complain)
|
|
Not to mention the HVAP shot costs 90! Munitions.
Ever since they removed the double tap from it, which was pretty dumb, no one uses it besides the rare case you will finish off a snared tank past your max range. |
|
Heavy Tank!
But with less health than the German Premium Medium. |
|
They gave the Stuart smoke? |
|
Yeah, it's hilarious to see Riflemen get plastered by much cheaper units, unless the RNGods smile upon you.
But Vet3 and 2 BARs. |
Doctrinal arguement is fine, it just doesn't seem to work in other cases for some reason. Not you just.... other cases.... cough* panzerfusis cough*. Skipped probably because you had 3+ rifles running around along with free officers and you don't really need that much more infantry. No room for elites :/ Just bad design IMO, but who knows, I'm bad at the game too 
It's just funny to see how that works, nowadays people sometimes go one Riflemen, because of cooldown nerfs on 0 CP call-in infantry.
What happened that everyone is avoiding them like the plague?
Panzerfusiliers at least now they will be cheaper Panzershreck squads than PGs. |
340MP (obers) vs 350MP (rangers), and 80 muni LMG vs 90 thompson, to win every CQC engagement and compete in open field charges. I would most definatley pay that little discrepancy for those results.
Is this where I argue that's fine because they are doctrinal?
I am surprised though, that sounds really good (thanks to the buff), but if they are so good then how come people skipped on them entirely? Even when HC was meta, people rarely used Rangers, why is that if they can beat Obers? |
I love this ranger talk. I think they'll be strong, probably too strong at 350MP, and it was one of my original concerns.
On open maps in 1v1 for example like crossroads, you can charge frontally and probably force a retreat on an LMG obersquad with thompson rangers but be forced to retreat yourself. But the problem lies I think in more CQC maps. Once you're into lategame, and both sides have lost maybe 2-3 infantry, you replace them with rangers, unless you need snares. OKW does the same with obers unless snares needed. On CQC maps, obers stand zero chance vs rangers without double grenade and a lot of luck. So on open maps and 1v1 it might be ok, in higher player gamemodes and CQC maps, rangers will crush with near zero counterplay.
And if rangers are going to sit and stay at 350MP, panzergrenadiers MP needs to be looked at (340MP).
Wouldn't Rangers be more expensive in that scenario?
Even with the 50 less MP upfront, they would still be more expensive, outside of reinforcement cost. Unless you count 3 vs 4 in 1 man retreat circumstances where they would be more expensive too!
Rangers in larger modes means giving up the Priest, maybe Urban Defense can finally dispute Infantry throne in such modes, but I highly doubt it considering how many want to replace the Calliope with some other tank and make this Commander irrelevant in larger game modes. |
|
I'd take the cheaper HC smoke for Rangers only, rather than Cover to Cover 70 munitions cost, but I think that buff perished with the change right?
That's like, 160 munitions, on an army everyone keeps saying you need 600 worth of upgrades to compete. |
|
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. |
Chile
1
Fez
Vermin Slayer
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
