[US] [Stats] Rangers vs Riflemen
#1
3 years ago
Kithrixx
Posts: 310
Has anyone pulled the stats for Rangers so they can be compared to Riflemen? I'd like to know what I'm getting for 400 Manpower aside from Cooked Pineapples and the potential to upgrade to Thompsons.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
So Rangers are more durable.
Now the real question is: How do they compare to Paratroopers?
If you played Ardennes assault, there was an upgrade you could get for rifles at some point that let you upgrade them with M1 Carbines. The model of the weapon the Rangers use, appears to be identical to the M1 carbine model. So basically an upgraded M1. (I think)
paratrooper_m1_thompson_mp 18.65640599 18.65640599 6.197206267 0.879487642
ranger_m1_thompson_mp 18.65640599 18.65640599 6.197206267 0.879487642
captain_m1_thompson_mp 14.29522752 14.29522752 2.620671543 0.634524435
m1a1_carbine_paratrooper_mp 9.989658738 6.264965653 3.280561233 2.190793192
m1a1_carbine_ranger_mp 9.989658738 6.264965653 3.280561233 2.190793192
m1_garand_rifle_rifleman_mp 6.762932917 4.334310187 2.805724877 1.978269494
compared to paratroopers rangers seem to be able to carry more weapons...
Rangers are more comparable to Paras than Rifles. Rangers start out with 0.8 received acc. while Rifles get 0.97. However, the gap closes significantly with vet as Rifles end up with 0.59 at vet 3 while Rangers have 0.5 (which is about the same as Panzergrens and a bit worse than vetted Obers).
Rangers and Paras have identical weapon profiles in terms of the M1 carbine (which is significantly better than the Rifle Garand and NOT the same as the one the RETs use) and the Thompsons they receive. The main difference is that Paras are cheaper to buy and reinforce, get better abilities, but are very slightly less durable overall (Paras get an extra man but inferior received accuracy). Further, Rangers also get access to 3 weapon slots (either Thompsons + BAR/Zooka or 3 BARs) although, frankly speaking, investing that many munitions in a single squad seems questionable with how many squad-wiping mechanics there are in the game currently. Losing a fully-equipped Ranger squad is going to hurt a lot. Paras are probably a better overall investment.
Quote the person who was complaining about Rangers before you posted that. Way to stroll into a neutral thread looking to polarize the conversation immediately.
First of all, this thread was made in the balance sction. Furthermore the OT is comparing Rangers that can roflstomp even Obers (that cost the same) to simple rifles which is rather suggestive. (I can tell there'll be "Rangers OP " threads verys soon given their potential). And last but not least, when I read this I also had the " Pershing UP" thread in mind, that appeared mere hours after release. Now compare this Doc, that can be descibed as game-winning, with that crap they call Feuersturm and you'll know why I wrote that.
Thank you. I would have done it myself but I was unsure how.
I was mostly just wondering if their description of "marksmanship" was accurate. They didn't seem to be performing much better than Paratroopers, and now I know why.
You wanna know what it suggests? It suggests I want to know the difference between the two squads because Company of Heroes 2 does not display unit stats beyond cost. It was made in the balance section because I figured it was more likely that people who frequent the balance section would either know or know how to find out.
Because you were eagerly awaiting another opportunity to own allied fanboys with your wise commentary?
I've compared them already quite a bit, still clueless as to why your wrote it. No one here is talking about Firestorm, or the Pershing, or anything else about the new commanders. This thread is about rangers, who cares if someone else made a thread about the Pershing. I'm sick and tried of posters like you abstracting the fanboy arguments to anyone making a point or asking a question that is focused around a faction or side. Those posts are equally as useless as the ones who make claims like the Pershing needs 500 more health with no argument.
Seriously, the guy asks about as innocent of question as you can in an original post, and you immediately mock it. "We need a nuke!" Yeah, cause that's remotely close to what he was suggesting, which was nothing btw, since he was ASKING A QUESTION...
IMO Rangers are just about where they should be as a doctrinal 400mp squad. They need weapon upgrades to be effective, but when given them, they'll do a much better job of staying alive than a rifle squad. The rec. accuracy is the reason to get them, it's the lowest of any American infantry.
You know what, maybe you are right and I'm overreacting here. But I'm sick and tired of 4v4 warriors ( not addressing anyone specific here) berating me about game balance while the overall balance is deteriorating more and more. Always the same old " allies have to play so much better" and all that crying and at the same time my fav mode, 2v2 is completly favouring Allies. It's like tap-dancing on a stage full of nails. Not even the biggest fanboy can deny those horrible winrates. And it's a result of exactly those people "advising" relic on how the game should be... well good job there.
Well, I am moving this to the General Discussion section.
Unfortunately the lack of consistent information will tend to result in folks making assumptions. I play all factions which usually means I'm not particularly great with any of them but I also have a good understanding of units from both sides. Those that favor one side also have unique perspectives that others don't.
Where the problem comes in is not those that have favoritism, but myopic views based on prejudices. You can usually spot those because they will argue every point whether relevant or not, and they will never compromise no matter what facts you present.
Having favorites is not the problem. We all have favorites. Mine change from day to day. Those that have favorites are just as loathed to see a die hard biased commenter even if he speaks in your favor because he clouds the issue. Then he clouds all other commenters agenda's. Then it makes it hard to comment on a subject because all are polarized and commenters are attacked and shoved into camps. Then those with favorites are baited into "Defense of the Realm" mode.
We all know who has favorites. We should not be spring loaded to dismiss their perspectives. We should be aware of those with biased prejudices for they will not only derail but pollute and polarize anything they want. It can be difficult to distinguish at times.
There are just too many balance discussion that are based on faulty assumptions, like f.ex. that 4v4 is just as valuable a source of data as the small modes even though it has issues that are connected to the size and the number of players, on synergies and too much ressources. But those that like that modes best won't hear of it and feel attacked. Even though there's quite theconvincing picture now, with balance being flipped in 3 out of 4 modes and 4v4 still favouring Axis, just like before.
I can't bring myself to argue in favour of the Allies even though I play them aswell ( or at least not the USF and Sov) simply because there are so many allied fanboys around that can't let go of the past where Allies were indeed UP. They have some kind of victim complex, like this whole " micro disparity" ( which is quite the irony considering that a-moving rifle blobs currently rule the infantry play). Or this constant nit-picking of those parts of the asymmetrical balance where the faction of choice is weak/ strong, while ignoring the faction composition as a whole or strengths that make up for a particular weakness.
While stats were brought up whenever it came to Axis dominance they are now disregarded by the same people. It's kinda hard not to get irritated when people want a certain playstyle (like massive, expensive tanks) but refuse to play the faction that has them and try to bend the game instead even when it's already leaning heavily towards one side.
And now something about Rangers so I'm not entirely off topic: I've used them quite excessively ( also because the new OKW commander is such a sad weakling) and they can run up the Obers and own them or stand right in the fire soaking up damage like a boss.
The doctrine has too many limitations except in multiplay if your teammate can cover the lack of strategic recon and off map arty. For me the jury is still out on Rangers. The new OKW command tree is in the same boat. I've had my butt handed to me by the flame strum pio's because his team covered the weakness of the doctrine. Both doctrines are heavy muni's with niche capabilities yet to be fully explored with the ally combo's that will enhance or limit.
As for flushing out ideas with some I just don't. With some it is like beating your head against the wall.....it just feels so good when you quit. But really, there are very few in that category. I often look at the reason I'm engaging, which is usually to confirm my hypothysis, learn a different perspective, or bring attention to those who can make change.
I know I can't convince anyone of anything so that is never my aim.
another point do not compare those two okw and usf commanders, me as an alies player didnt say anything when OKW got Jagd doctrine with huge damn gun, we just kept playing and waiting for lovely M26.
one more thing regarding 4x4. guys stop complaining regarding this mode, we like it and all others who play 4x4 likes it and yes we want balance for this mode also, whenever 4 people playing against 4 people and 4 KT could be staying in one place doesnt mean this mode is useless, it is not, 4x4 is the most fun of COH2.
My regards.
Axis doesn't have elite troops of that caliber, which is part of the reason why the infantry balance is off - they die like flies.
Obers with scoped stg44 don't exist?
Nope, para squad has 6 men, which is the same of durability as ranger, while capable of dealing higher dps with 6 men.
The only downside is reinforce cost.
STG44 doesn't stop them from dying easily and IIRC they still get owned by both Rangers and Airborne.
Do you know what received accuracy means? Model with 0,8 received accuracy is 20% more durable under small arms fire than model with 1,0 ra.
Do you know what received accuracy means? Model with 0,8 received accuracy is 20% more durable under small arms fire than model with 1,0 ra.
that is not completely accurate. entities do not have received accuracy modifiers they have "target size" and that only works that way is the firing units has 100% or less...In close combat some times target size makes little difference...
Considering this logic at long range it should give bigger difference than it supposed to.
Generally more HP seem to be better than smaller target size. That is why osttruppen with a target size 1.25 do well against riflemen with a target size 0.97...