Soldiers Vs Rangers?

[Pondera the Radio Angel]

So, I understand that Rangers move faster than soldiers, and have a longer range, but do their silent weapons actually do anything beyond not setting off VoDs? I haven't noticed any change in aggro pattern when just doing casual map clearing, and soldiers tend to make mush out of swarms better.

At least, that's my humble opinion after a few scant hours of play on 10% difficulty. I'M STILL LEARNING! DON'T YOU JUDGE ME! XD

[Valar Morghulis]

Play brutal map4 and you'll see for yourself^^

[Nailfoot]

The expense of soldiers is what kills them. Most people skip over them for the infinitely better sniper.

Make about 25 rangers, and then 30 snipers. Don’t waste resources on soldiers.

[DemonchanSama (Lilyia)]

Soldiers are very good at holding a line , 10 vet soldiers can easily do what about 30 vet rangers will, if you put them in defensive towers at choke points they will murder enemy waves.

Unfortunately the unit cost is too much currently, the soldier probably needs a reblance/tweak in some way, if the unit is skipped over entirely by most of the players that would be an indicator that something is wrong with the unit's overall usefulness, or that usefulness is too trivial to make good circumstance of.

I would increase soldier attack speed, and probably increase the noise they generate, they say they wield a submachine gun but it fires more like a shotgun.

[Zodiac]

Originally posted by Scarlet:

Soldiers are very good at holding a line , 10 vet soldiers can easily do what about 30 vet rangers will, if you put them in defensive towers at choke points they will murder enemy waves.

Unfortunately the unit cost is too much currently, the soldier probably needs a reblance/tweak in some way, if the unit is skipped over entirely by most of the players that would be an indicator that something is wrong with the unit's overall usefulness, or that usefulness is too trivial to make good circumstance of.

I would increase soldier attack speed, and probably increase the noise they generate, they say they wield a submachine gun but it fires more like a shotgun.

Well said, +1

[X-542]

Yeah I used soldiers at first, but quickly realized that there's no reason to. They're expensive and have no late game value. It's better to use rangers until you get snipers.

[Rhuzhen]

Originally posted by Pondera:

So, I understand that Rangers move faster than soldiers, and have a longer range, but do their silent weapons actually do anything beyond not setting off VoDs? I haven't noticed any change in aggro pattern when just doing casual map clearing, and soldiers tend to make mush out of swarms better.

At least, that's my humble opinion after a few scant hours of play on 10% difficulty. I'M STILL LEARNING! DON'T YOU JUDGE ME! XD

Since someone mentioned Map4, let me warn you now. Ranger is NOT silent (in the literal sense), even one Vet that you dont micromanage can still bring down the undead hammer on your base.

[Valar Morghulis]

Originally posted by Scarlet:

Soldiers are very good at holding a line , 10 vet soldiers can easily do what about 30 vet rangers will, if you put them in defensive towers at choke points they will murder enemy waves.

Unfortunately the unit cost is too much currently, the soldier probably needs a reblance/tweak in some way, if the unit is skipped over entirely by most of the players that would be an indicator that something is wrong with the unit's overall usefulness, or that usefulness is too trivial to make good circumstance of.

10 soldiers have the same upkeep as 30 rangers, but cost extra food and iron and are more expensive to train.

Why would I go for soldiers?

[Rhuzhen]

Originally posted by Valar Morghulis:

Originally posted by Scarlet:

Soldiers are very good at holding a line , 10 vet soldiers can easily do what about 30 vet rangers will, if you put them in defensive towers at choke points they will murder enemy waves.

Unfortunately the unit cost is too much currently, the soldier probably needs a reblance/tweak in some way, if the unit is skipped over entirely by most of the players that would be an indicator that something is wrong with the unit's overall usefulness, or that usefulness is too trivial to make good circumstance of.

10 soldiers have the same upkeep as 30 rangers, but cost extra food and iron and are more expensive to train.

Why would I go for soldiers?

Here is a wiki to help you compare:
http://they-are-billions.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Units

For your convenience the breakdown is the following for some simple costs
15 Soldiers to 30 rangers should be equal for food costs, though of course will cost 30 more iron and twice the gold, something like 1500 more all-together?

Vet Sold has Attk Spd 2.5 where Ranger has 2
Vet Sold has Dmg 25 and Ranger has 12

Vet Sold kills almost all enemy targets twice as fast as a ranger

[Rhuzhen]

From what I can see they are almost the same in terms of resources and efficiency.
However, there is a clear difference between noise made by either unit
And then 1 soldier seems to be worth 2 rangers. The advantage in this is if you're concerned towers or space when standing up next to walls. That is you'd need 4 towers instead of 8 for a particular defensive front if you were to put all units in one place.

[Rhuzhen]

Even between normal Variants Soldier kills targets at somewhere between 20-30% faster excluding chubby which dies at 29 shots vs 75

[Harbinger]

Soldiers aren't that terrible, unless you are playing on 500% difficulty. In 500%, just forget that they ever existed.

I constantly find soldiers being a good addition on my map clearing group by providing flexibility to deal with special infected. They have good armor and attack than rangers, a (bit) cheaper and more disposable than sniper, so in emergecny you can easily leave your soldiers behind while pulling back your snipers.

Also, having small group of soldiers as 'infection rapid response' team also helps to deal with unprepared emergencies, if your defensive line is bit stretched too far. They are a lot faster than snipers, and a lot stronger than rangers, so they can easily cut out infection from spreading in your outer colony perimeter.

The problem is, even above two situations I find them useful can be easily prevented with careful planning, and can be accomplished with group of rangers and snipers, which you are almost forced to have anyway in current game meta.

[Valar Morghulis]

Originally posted by Rhuzhen:

15 Soldiers to 30 rangers should be equal for food costs, though of course will cost 30 more iron and twice the gold, something like 1500 more all-together?

You know that Rangers don't have a food cost? Which is the reason I rather spend my food on my eco instead of soldiers, who are

a.) Slow af
b.) Aggro the map like a boss
c.) Need me to go for an early iron quarry
d.) Have more gold upkeep and are more expensive to train than Rangers

As long as they don't buff Soldiers I don't see a point in taking them. And I won't.

[Rhuzhen]

Originally posted by Valar Morghulis:

Originally posted by Rhuzhen:

15 Soldiers to 30 rangers should be equal for food costs, though of course will cost 30 more iron and twice the gold, something like 1500 more all-together?

You know that Rangers don't have a food cost? Which is the reason I rather spend my food on my eco instead of soldiers, who are

a.) Slow af
b.) Aggro the map like a boss
c.) Need me to go for an early iron quarry
d.) Have more gold upkeep and are more expensive to train than Rangers

As long as they don't buff Soldiers I don't see a point in taking them. And I won't.

Oh, I'm sorry I need to go back and so a bit of math.
1 Worker needs 2 Food
1 Ranger costs 1 Worker
Thus Ranger needs 2 food from the start, even if she needs no extra.
So, Soldier needs 3 food total as he is worth a worker and needs that 1 more.

So lets see...
30 rangers are 60 food
15 Soldiers are 45 food so you could have 20 soldiers for 60 food.
Thats also 10 workers who are free to work in your buildings instead of replaced as military.

EDIT: To make up for those 10 workers when going ranger then you would probably need a normal farm which needs related resources, space, and new houses.

20 Soldiers need 1200g and 40 more iron upfront and 40g more per shift all together.

In exchange for their costs they do more damage in a shorter amount of time.

You are correct, Rangers are better in the early game, but they will lose out in dps midgame and later.

[Pondera the Radio Angel]

*uses snipers for the first time*
... *watches little zombie timmy's torso land in one cell, and his legs land in another*
.... Well, these guys are freaking great. :D

[Rhuzhen]

Originally posted by Pondera:

*uses snipers for the first time*
... *watches little zombie timmy's torso land in one cell, and his legs land in another*
.... Well, these guys are freaking great. :D

Indeed, but they are also:

a.) Slow af
b.) Aggro the map like a boss
c.) Need me to go for an early iron quarry
d.) Have more gold upkeep and are more expensive to train than Rangers

Yet are also undeniably powerful. At this time they pretty much do the soldier's job better.