Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

Author Topic: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne  (Read 6914 times)

Offline irik

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« on: July 12, 2011, 01:02:20 AM »
In coh, when I play as Ami (I don't suck as them anymore (yay)! But they're still my hardest faction. So when it comes to elite infantry Ami have, I've been stuck with Airborne or Rangers. Airborne can get upgrades anywhere, reinforce anywhere, and do not always come at the regular call in area (you can paradrop them there, but I don't know why you would). But Rangers already come with AT capabilities. They seem very hardy and durable and can get better AI capabilities with their Thompsons. Which is better? Right now, I prefer Rangers because of the unit skin, as in how their uniform looks.

BUT: GUARDS AND NAVAL INFANTRY FOR THE WIN! I'd use these over rangers or airborne anyday!
Guards of the Red Army. Today, the German Reich is done away with!

pariah

  • Guest
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2011, 01:32:17 AM »
It's hard to compare them, when you don't really choose between them (aside from the army and doctrine).

Personally, i prefer the Airborne, because you can drop them anywhere (dropping them at the call-in point is just stupid under almost any circumstances...) you have L.O.S., and they can reinforce independently as well. Recoilless Rifles are much better than Bazookas, too.

Offline DrRockzo1986

  • Donor
  • Guard
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • You're pretty good
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2011, 01:58:45 AM »
I prefer Airborne over rangers because they are better vs Tanks which is something the Germans use alot of. Plus they have satchels, and like Pariah said its good that they can reinforce anywhere, even though it takes forever by comparison. However, Rangers are much better against infantry when you upgrade to Thompsons. It kinda just depends on the situation
An Ocelot never lets his prey escape


image hosting jpeg

Offline irik

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2011, 03:07:10 AM »
Rangers look more tough. I guess its true Rangers are better with infantry and Airborne are better with tanks.
Guards of the Red Army. Today, the German Reich is done away with!

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2011, 04:49:43 AM »
I prefer Rangers. Bazookas coming for free on the squad are a great defense against fast Pumas, which are a pain for me to deal with if I get snipers since Motor Pool will be delayed. Thompsons are very powerful and Bazookas are better against bunkers than recoiless are. Infantry doc is also a better, more useful doctrine IMO over airborne and I don't like using strafe because I think it's a crutch. A perfect example is TOMITOMA not actually being that great a player but spams strafe and just attacks when everything is either pinned or dead.

Paras have more health than rangers but slightly worse armour. When on the move (bonus from airborne armour), paras are extremely tough.
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.

Offline RedGuard

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1014
  • Welcome to Axis Front mod
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2011, 05:21:05 AM »
rangers lead the way! besides rangers being expensive, IMO they are the best AI troops on the field at any given time w/thompsons, and given support they can fill AT roles plus they tough as nails

everyone panics if they drop a zook and dont pick it back up but if you went motor pool AT guns are able to pick up the slack, while not having the bazooka actually focus' their superior AI abilitys by giving them another gun

airborne are great jack of all trades master of none
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 05:23:41 AM by RedGuard »
Soviet is OP

Offline Cranialwizard

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • Unknown Soldier
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2011, 06:11:41 AM »
I prefer Rangers mainly because of the Free AT Weapons and the Thompsons that can be upgrades. Great at countering early vehicles (Better than RRs) and can even tackle P4s and sometimes Panthers in groups.

Their only real drawback is their massive upkeep and reinforce cost. They cost more than Airborne in both of those departments.

Airborne's main disadvantage is that they pay a hefty munition fine for some lack-luster AT weapons...Though like Dennis said they are better on the move than rangers.

They can also be called in anywhere in your sight (Defending a point etc) and throw satchels.

I think Infantry is the better doctrine anyway. Airborne is OK with Supply drops and Strafes but again like Dennis said it's just a list of "Oh shit" buttons :)
"Balancers are 10 a penny"

Chancellor

  • Guest
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2011, 08:04:08 AM »
I prefer Airborne, because their RRs actually do something, but mainly because of one thing: STRAFING RUN is included in their doctrine.  Ranger's Infantry doctrine's off-map arty just can't compare.  RRs seem to have longer range and better penetration than bazookas, and strafing run will rape more infantry than Thompsons ever will.  Bazookas are actually so sh1t that I never even pick dropped ones up when playing Axis.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 08:18:10 AM by Yauz »

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2011, 08:36:07 AM »
Squad of volks with 5 bazookas :) Drool....
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.

pariah

  • Guest
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2011, 01:27:15 PM »

Offline Otto Halfhand

  • Donor
  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2011, 01:58:11 PM »
Wonderful screen shot. I love the ranger with the WTF exclamation point. ;D
All other things being equal. Airborne > Rangers 2CP early availability is a big stick. FJs and Commandos are slowest to arrive. 200xp=3CP, Rangers 180xp=1+2 CPs, Airbourne, Storms, NI 120xp=2CP.

Q. How do the Rgr/Tommyguns compare with the 1.0 modifier for PGs/ST44s

 
 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 02:00:39 PM by Otto 213 »
孫 The
EF_v1.7.10
子 Art
Illegitimi non Carborundum -"Vinegar" Joe Stilwell
兵 of
Sun Tzu says: In warfare one compels and is not compelled by others
法 War

Offline Paciat

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1206
  • Without balance COH world will end!
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2011, 02:12:29 PM »
Q. How do the Rgr/Tommyguns compare with the 1.0 modifier for PGs/ST44s
If you have a 2nd Supply upgrade + Healing station you can win with PG MP44 spam unsing only Rangers+Rifles. Thompson (unlike STENs) are great for killing PGs.

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2011, 02:18:23 PM »
Thomspons have 0.75 damage against infantry, elite, heroic, soldier and airborne armour (most small arms are 1.0 vs infantry, 0.75 vs elite/airborne/heroic, 0.6 vs soldier). Therefore their damage is not mitigated at all by armour, like the MP44 (1.0 vs all). They are still affected by accuracy however (same as MP44) - 0.85 vs heroic, 0.75 vs elite/moving airborne. Therefore both Thompsons and MP44s are similar in function in that they are used by elite squads to counter enemy elite troops. Thompsons are better than MP44s against Snipers however.
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.

pariah

  • Guest
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2011, 02:24:55 PM »
What about Bazookas vs. Recoilless Rifles, Dennis? In my experience, R.R.s are far more accurate, and have a far higher chance of penetrating, than Bazookas. I think it's totally worth the 125 Munitions. Can you attest to this?

Edit: Or you could just post it in here, if you want:
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=6314.0 [nofollow]
 :P
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 02:26:31 PM by pariah »

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison of Rangers and Airborne
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2011, 02:29:51 PM »
Recoiless do less damage than Bazookas and have much higher penetration. Their projectiles have around the same accuracy AFAIK but the Recoiless shots have much less scatter so a rolled "miss" can still hit the target hitbox. Recoiless are better against tanks and Bazookas are better against ACs and buildings. Bazookas also get substantial bonuses when attacking from the rear of an enemy. I'm can't remember if it's a large damage boost or a large penetration boost. Either way, Bazookas shouldn't engage anything heavier than a P4 from the front because they'll just bounce off all day. Attack from behind and they can shred. Rangers are easier to vet IMO than airborne as well because of their anti-infantry power, and a vet 3 Ranger squad is one of the best squads available in the game (+50% damage and substantial other benefits).
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.