3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Medic Truck » 05 Aug 2017, 16:21

I was thinking about this aspect of garands to be used in the close up distances and the incentive to use officers offensively. But, it gets very difficult to survive against hard hitting axis infantries.

A 2 man or 3 man Ranger Captain would help in infantry advances quite well I think. A 300 mp Bar riflemen is enough incentive to make a ranger captain right now but unlike Haupst's who can kill mercilessly, the Captains use seems very defensive instead it was supposed to promote offense and mobility.

British have single lieutnant but there is captain too and the infantry section is quite durable to lead the charge even better than Rangers arguably at some points.

So, what do you think about this suggestion?

speeddemon02
Posts: 153
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby speeddemon02 » 05 Aug 2017, 19:10

I too play with the captain in a defensive role only when on foot. I will use him for offensive only when in a HT as max range MG support. Maybe instead of adding more men to the unit change the captain's stats to have more HP or reduced incoming small arms accuracy. Something that will give them a bit more survivability in the field during offensives

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 458
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby sgtToni95 » 05 Aug 2017, 19:19

I found that very useful to put the captain inside the m2/3 (can't remember) halftrack: it works as a retreat point that can reinforce your units, and the captain will handle the truck mounted 50 cal mg which can be deadly against infantry. This way you can even use it to move faster your units along the frontline by transporting them in the truck or by moving it with the captain to the desired location and then retreat all other units to its position.

I know that it's not so effective as combat unit, but it's mainly made to boost nearby infantry, or to use "force retreat" ability than to be in the fight himself, same as CW officers (can still work in certain situations) and WH "basic" officer.
So i think it's fine as it is, just try using it more as a support unit and indirect combat man that a killing machine.

User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Medic Truck » 05 Aug 2017, 19:43

sgtToni95 wrote:I found that very useful to put the captain inside the m2/3 (can't remember) halftrack: it works as a retreat point that can reinforce your units, and the captain will handle the truck mounted 50 cal mg which can be deadly against infantry. This way you can even use it to move faster your units along the frontline by transporting them in the truck or by moving it with the captain to the desired location and then retreat all other units to its position.

I know that it's not so effective as combat unit, but it's mainly made to boost nearby infantry, or to use "force retreat" ability than to be in the fight himself, same as CW officers (can still work in certain situations) and WH "basic" officer.
So i think it's fine as it is, just try using it more as a support unit and indirect combat man that a killing machine.


Hi sgtToni95,

I understand this reasoning. I myself try to put the Ranger Captain in the GMC truck of 150 MP to provide cheap forward boost and later the halftrack for the same purpose. I was just brainstorming about the descriptive aspect of the unit. The unit description says, 'offensive and mobility' bonus. So, having a solid ranger captain compensating for the close range fighting units would be pretty good considering the Axis counterparts. An Axis officer can throughout the game safely influence the production speeds of the buildings and at the same point be quite effective providing the bonuses in the front line.

Even if not as a fighting unit itself, would it matter a bit if that unit had a another one or two unit with itself as a squad just to make the rifles be quite effective and hence forcing the Axis team members to deploy the officers? I think it would be very intelligent mechanics to bring to the table than just rushing directly to the final stages of armour from the early start.

I am a bit of drunk but let this talk not be taken as mindless rant or an annoying diatribe. I am just sort of a guy who wants to make the game a little upon the shoulders of every unit a little. Not entirely, but a little so that every unit makes sense.

I appreciate the answer Sgttoni95.

User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Medic Truck » 05 Aug 2017, 19:45

speeddemon02 wrote:I too play with the captain in a defensive role only when on foot. I will use him for offensive only when in a HT as max range MG support. Maybe instead of adding more men to the unit change the captain's stats to have more HP or reduced incoming small arms accuracy. Something that will give them a bit more survivability in the field during offensives


I can agree to this too way too. Not being pushy about it, as I also currently able to use the Captain efficiently but it would be great if this were into people's discussion and food for thought. :?:

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Aug 2017, 19:55

Its not the first time we discuss this. At some point it makes sense. CW lieutnant has abilties like binoculars, off map arty in arty doc, heroic charge idk if he also get VT. However two non doc abilities and later actually quite cheap to get for CW.

WH is fine because of the way he can be used in base and having an arty strike available.

Actually such a squad like PE has it would look nice. But cost would probably go up depending on abilties and weapons.

What i was personally thinking off was to enable inf doc ranger captain to hide passively after ranger upgrade.

Armor doc doesnt need it for much else than retreat point mostly. AB has their own squad anyways. So for Inf doc he would make up something when able to ambush. Ambushes can be placed more effective as well. Similiar as storm leader and storms or PE leader/SS squad can.


I think that would i prefer since i am, if used offensively, using him also (or did at least) inside an Halftrack as mobile reinforce point.

speeddemon02
Posts: 153
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby speeddemon02 » 05 Aug 2017, 21:33

I like the idea of the captain hiding in Inf doc that would be a good addition

User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Medic Truck » 05 Aug 2017, 21:40

Warhawks97 wrote:Its not the first time we discuss this. At some point it makes sense. CW lieutnant has abilties like binoculars, off map arty in arty doc, heroic charge idk if he also get VT. However two non doc abilities and later actually quite cheap to get for CW.

WH is fine because of the way he can be used in base and having an arty strike available.

Actually such a squad like PE has it would look nice. But cost would probably go up depending on abilties and weapons.

What i was personally thinking off was to enable inf doc ranger captain to hide passively after ranger upgrade.

Armor doc doesnt need it for much else than retreat point mostly. AB has their own squad anyways. So for Inf doc he would make up something when able to ambush. Ambushes can be placed more effective as well. Similiar as storm leader and storms or PE leader/SS squad can.


I think that would i prefer since i am, if used offensively, using him also (or did at least) inside an Halftrack as mobile reinforce point.



Thanks for the valuable inputs Warhawks97.

Even if any new abilities or weapons were not introduced and a simple carbines were provided with two guys with the Captain, the role would really appeal to use them rather than straight away go for the M16. The upgraded Captains really have a very nice boosts to the squads. So, there would be no more point to buffing garands?! As it would require tactical usage of captains in a particular area of the map and would still make US infantry's presence felt.

There are points in the gameplay where I have upgraded Captain really changing the course of gamepley but some random stuff here and there really changes that course if he gets killed. Not that is difficult to get upgraded here when using the correct strat with a unit and stick to its strength but this change would really be a nice boost to tactical infantry combat.

Even if in the Armor or AB doc, these principles would be the very basics. The principles that will not change any outcomes but really help any rangers or riflemens advance a little. Airborne roles are a bit different. They usually drop beyond the lines in the enemy territory and fight for survival trying to connect to the other divisions. So, even here it would be right.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Redgaarden » 06 Aug 2017, 20:44

Just checked some stuff on corsix. And I think I need some one to clarify something for me. I see that US officer has 30range UI decorator but gives a 40 range combat buffs to allies? does this mean that your troops acutally do get buffed but there is just no indicator? (abilities\ally_leadership_officer.lua) I checked old patch since I couldn't find Ranger captain in new patch.
And also luitenants have only 30 range for their buffs which is actually extremly short range. Could this be buffed? to be equivalent to all other officer buf range of 40?

Even if any new abilities or weapons were not introduced and a simple carbines were provided with two guys with the Captain, the role would really appeal to use them rather than straight away go for the M16. The upgraded Captains really have a very nice boosts to the squads. So, there would be no more point to buffing garands?! As it would require tactical usage of captains in a particular area of the map and would still make US infantry's presence felt.

There are points in the gameplay where I have upgraded Captain really changing the course of gamepley but some random stuff here and there really changes that course if he gets killed. Not that is difficult to get upgraded here when using the correct strat with a unit and stick to its strength but this change would really be a nice boost to tactical infantry combat.


I personally dont like Ranger captain since his biggest bonus is his 50% less suppression which make it more of an uttility buff than combat buff. So I can't see where "very nice boosts to the squads" comes from since he gives almost no combat buffs and is most often just a waste of resources. And it's hard to buff garands when you have infantry doctrine that can field about 66 garands while armour doc only can field 18. Infantry doctrine removes all reason for buffing garands with it's upgrades.
And since we're getting combat engineers in armour doctrine which have guns that are more preferable in long range than a garand it all shoud be ok.

"US infantry's presence felt." Germans are always happy to kill us infnatry.

"There are points in the gameplay where I have upgraded Captain really changing the course of gamepley "
There are points in my gameplay where captain has had more negative impact in the game than positiv which still resulted in my win.

" tactical infantry combat." There is no tactical infantry combat in this mod. Or I atleast haven't seen it yet.

Even if in the Armor or AB doc, these principles would be the very basics. The principles that will not change any outcomes but really help any rangers or riflemens advance a little. Airborne roles are a bit different. They usually drop beyond the lines in the enemy territory and fight for survival trying to connect to the other divisions. So, even here it would be right.


If you're getting Rangers beofre you have them fully upgraded in Inf doc. Then you're doing something wrong. I have often seen a player lose a game just because he got himself an Ranger squad. It's ok in 3v3-4v4 but in 2v2-1v1 you lose instantly as soon an the Ranger gets out of the barracks. In my eyes a ranger squad is almost equal to an engineer squad early game.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

speeddemon02
Posts: 153
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby speeddemon02 » 06 Aug 2017, 21:13

US Captain: (applies to all US infantry except for AB units)
Vet0:
Received suppression: -50%
Sight radius: +25%
Accuracy: +12.5%
Vet2:
Received experience: +25%
Weapon cooldown time: -10%
Weapon reload time: -10%
Received Damage: -15%
Vet4: 
Weapon damage: +15%

Sight radius is huge when a scout is nearby. I see how it is more utilitarian. If the captain were to have hide ability then the bonuses might more sense for ambush tactics.

User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Medic Truck » 06 Aug 2017, 22:06

Redgaarden wrote:
And it's hard to buff garands when you have infantry doctrine that can field about 66 garands while armour doc only can field 18.


If you're getting Rangers beofre you have them fully upgraded in Inf doc. Then you're doing something wrong. I have often seen a player lose a game just because he got himself an Ranger squad. It's ok in 3v3-4v4 but in 2v2-1v1 you lose instantly as soon an the Ranger gets out of the barracks. In my eyes a ranger squad is almost equal to an engineer squad early game.



I didn't understand the 66 garands part. Are Rangers so weak? Sure, they are nothing like vCOH units but flexibility is there for any role?

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Redgaarden » 06 Aug 2017, 23:56

I didn't understand the 66 garands part. Are Rangers so weak? Sure, they are nothing like vCOH units but flexibility is there for any role?


I mean it's hard to balance when infnatry doctrine usually gets 11 squads of Rangers squads when armour doctrine has problems field 3 at the time. And I have seen 66 garand rifles shoot at 2 fully upgraded grenadier squads and still trading 1 for 1. So to answer your question. Rangers aren't weak, Garands are.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Aug 2017, 23:58

Redgaarden wrote:If you're getting Rangers beofre you have them fully upgraded in Inf doc. Then you're doing something wrong. I have often seen a player lose a game just because he got himself an Ranger squad. It's ok in 3v3-4v4 but in 2v2-1v1 you lose instantly as soon an the Ranger gets out of the barracks. In my eyes a ranger squad is almost equal to an engineer squad early game.


Which is true. For several reasons.

The first is the upkeep. I wouldnt get them untill supply yard is build at least or first upgrade up.
So you wont field any superior number of them. I felt same when i thought "lets get em quick". You need vehicles first as backbone to counter axis inf. M16 or M20 or the like.

When you have enough support units and enough rangers they can be usefull from time to time. But that requires usually several inf doc unlocks such as cheaper inf (they are still over 300 MP), supply yard upgraded and special abilties unlocked.


In general rangers combined with ranger captain does not really make you kill better, you will just live a bit longer.

But here we go. The rifle stats of rangers and rifle squad are pretty much same. between 15 and 25 range the rangers are clearly better to rifles, from 25 to 35 equal and from then on pretty the same and lightyears beyond Axis Volksgrens.

The faster rof of M1 is rather a myth. From 25 to 60 range the the K98 fires 0.125 seconds faster even. from 15-25 M1 shoots faster and from 0-15 much faster. But thats not worth anything when every squad has sub machine guns and stgs and lmgs.


M1 has more rounds 8 rounds before reload compared to 5 of k98. But reload can take slightly longer.



Rangers -50% suppression seems nice. But MG42 will still instant suppress them in the open. Standing in cover wont change much to the result as M1 will hardly score at range.

12,5% more accuracy seems a lot but since they start off with rifle squad accuracy at range goes from 23% to 25,875%. A small boost. Volks with basic 35% accuracy will be boosted to 39,375% (assuming axis officer gives same boost). WH grens go from 45% to 50,625% (thats what i said when i said that axis gain more from veterancy. Remember that income increase of employees? Those who already have a salary of 3000 euro will get more from 10% income boost than the dude with 300 euro of salary.

So the veterancy in BK actually just increases the gaps. So when you fight axis try to use stuff against which they wont score. That means use vehicles to kill their inf or sniper. Rangers will be food and the performence gap between your inf and their inf will just increase. So large gaps will just become even larger even when both will get their boosts.

That means in the same time, that when you fight axis inf, try not to use too much own inf to prevent feeding. Thus the role of ranger is questionable. Except you somehow manage to kill all vet axis inf while your vet inf and officer will keep alive.


Redgaarden wrote:
I mean it's hard to balance when infnatry doctrine usually gets 11 squads of Rangers squads when armour doctrine has problems field 3 at the time. And I have seen 66 garand rifles shoot at 2 fully upgraded grenadier squads and still trading 1 for 1. So to answer your question. Rangers aren't weak, Garands are.



Back in days i had battles vs luftwaffe inf with inf doc. I managed to beat them with mainly rifle squads only. But just because i had so many zombie rifle squads and fired endless rifle nades. I had at least (in all together) sometimes 10-15 rifle squads and few rangers. Luftwaffe mainly 2 reg 5 and 1 gebirgs (2-3 units). So in any way, if you want to beat axis inf just with US inf the required ammount will simply kill the players due to the massive micro gameplay. So you are not going to beat axis inf with US inf (CW can) only. You use snipers and vehicles anway most of the time.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 07 Aug 2017, 00:27, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: 3 man or at least 2 man Ranger Captain?

Postby Medic Truck » 07 Aug 2017, 00:18

Thanks Redgaarden and Warhawks97 for the responses. Too late for the day. Will reply tomorrow.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest