Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
8 
Report this post
Yes, they do. It's as stupid when it was at release as it is now.
Just checked. Yep, they do.
Also, small mistake on my part. They were not just two rangers, but four. One was forced to reatreat early, the other one got pinned. Pios with grenade launchers were firing behind them, not pgrens.
https://imgur.com/a/QP1Hjfo
So they killed a pz3 and a tiger, while being fired at from behind and still managed to win easily. Is this intentional? Surely, this is kinda OP, no?
P.S. And yes, I forgot to use s mine launchers on my tiger, but I didn't expect my tanks to lose like this!
-exposing the rear (since ver 2.0, medium and heavy tanks take increased damage from rear armor hits)
-left it with practically 0 support
These are general mistakes before losing a heavy tank and you did the double whammy.
So the truth is, there is no infantry or tank that can beat them?
I did not expose anything. He was approaching me and I tried to drive back, but they were quicker than my tanks!
I think they should nerf firing bazookas while moving. It is super OP. That's why he won the engagement. Just right clicked behind my tanks and won.
Tiger isnt a battering ram, keep it back. Has massive range, use it.
Like I said, I tried to keep my Tiger at distance, but the rangers catched up with him anyway. A tiger is very slow.
This thread isn't about beating rangers with battle groups. I know rangers can be beaten with combined arms and proper BGs, but this is not my issue. My issue is the balance of the unit itself. It doesn't have a counterpart on the DAK side, and this is a problem. Gustattori might be comparable, but they lack AT capabilities, while rangers seem to be mobile tank destroyers and infantry killers at the same time.
Rangers are indeed unique, but they are uniquely expensive. They are, by far, the most expensive squad (comparable call-in cost to other elites, but massively higher reinforce + upkeep. They also as it happens take a very long time to vet up.
If your opponent had 2x vet3 rangers equipped with many hundreds of munitions worth of special weapons (necessary for them to have bazookas) then it sounds like what went wrong happened much earlier in the match.
Ironically, if I bought several mgs instead of this crap Tiger, that would counter the blob and the game could go differently.
Does it seem right to you that more expensive call ins are worthless compared to options that don't require fuel?(Tiger vs MGs) I guess I did play wrong, but only because I made logical decisions instead of just following game logic. Rangers are like space marines and it's wrong. This unit rewards blobbing, which is a big problem in this game(especially in the U.S. faction).
You're playing a game, so "making logical decisions" is following game logic.
The DAK tiger considered pretty very strong; it's extremely oppressive and pretty hard to actually kill if one manages to get it out; it's primary weakness is really just that you can lose before you get the resources for it. If you lost it to charging ranger squads alone then it sounds like one of three things happen (probably a combination)
All your support died and it as mostly alone or caught out of position
The rangers loaded up entirely on bazookas and had no anti-infantry potential whatsoever (which costs many hundreds to a thousand+ munitions)
Something else helped bring down the tiger and it wasn't really just two ranger squads.
That said, if indeed your opponent was focusing on heavily AT-oriented rangers then...yeah I would expect building more MGs to be effective. "Build heavy machineguns to counter waves of elite AT infantry" doesn't really seem like a particularly unreasonable stance. Rangers with many bazookas are a dedicated AT unit (they're pretty much worthless against infantry past 3+ zooks per squad). Tiger's not terrible against Rangers either but if you don't have many units left (and thus nothing to support it) then it's not going to just magically win the game for you by itself.
For what it's worth, in higher ELO games, rangers are considered not very good at all. To be effective they pretty much need to get the drop on their targets and be able to close the distance without being ripped up (& losing models is extremely punishing).
Especially against DAK, Rangers are a liability if used early. When you hit your flacktruck timing they become extremely easy to control, while any chance to retaliate for them hinges on random weapon crate drops. Because forget about getting Motorpool and AT guns fast enough with that kind of manpower investment and bleed.
Here's a top players narrated example of that in action with a counter example right after:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK1L9yD-TEY
Blame 4vs4 for obscuring these weaknesses.
As for you playing wrong - yeah idk what you train of thought is here. When you see a strong infantry based anti-tank presence, then how is it at all logical to go for a big, slow, low rate of fire tank?