British Rangers are too good

(3 Ranger cards, Advanced Arsenal and all upgrades)

  • They have 3 more damage than Port Cassadors
  • Roughly 7 more damage than normal Skirms
  • A higher multiplier against Heavy Infantry (0.25 higher than Cass or Skrims)
  • 2 more range than Cass or Skirms.

Tests show that they kill Musk better than normal Skirms and beat all other vanilla Skirms.

I don’t see why this was necessary, brits already have great musks and Huss. Longbows are also good even though they don’t kill musks as well as Skirms do they still beat them and win against vanilla Skirms too.

If you play Dutch or Germany it’s a joke because your skims will lose to the Rangers when your Skirms are the only viable infantry you have late game.


I disagree. Rangers have been pretty weak for the majority of their existence with them only recently getting their buffs, so to take that away now would seem silly. I think they are meant to be a quite “elite” / “above average” unit because they are so difficult to obtain (like Nazim Fusiliers). In game you either have to send the unique church upgrade card (worth roughly 600 resources), then research Roger’s Rangers (another 800 resources), then to get them trainable, you have to research “Queen’s Rangers” (another 2000 resources) which adds up to 3400 resources total and that’s before you’ve even upgraded them at all.

Arguably you could send the “Rangers” HC card but that card is still relatively worth 1600 resources plus wasting an Age 4 shipment. To buff them to the stats you’ve mentioned, you have to sent another two Age 3 HC cards worth about 1000 resources each. (I’m presuming most British players are already sending the “advanced arsenal” card for the Musketeers benefits)

So, my point is they are only really viable to be used in the Imperial Age and that is the only time they are going to be better than a normal skirmisher. (remember before “baker rifles” have been sent their range is only 18 meaning they’re venerable to normal skirmisher’s hit and run tactics).

I think they are now being based more around the United State’s Sharpshooter than they are a European Skirmisher. So that is the unit I’d probably compare it against.

To counter them don’t use other skirmishers!!! Use horse artillery if you’re Dutch as you’re gunna be coin rich anyways or if you’re German use you’re unlimited supply of Uhlans from the HC.

The only concession I’ll make is that their price could be increased to 70 food and 70 coin with a kill bonus of 14xp, as long as they get some increased hitpoints to make up for it.


I think the concept of the unit should be an “elite” one like nizam fusiliers or sipahi (already strong but hard to obtain). Not a below average unit that needs 2 additional cards to get above average (because you first need a card to unlock it). What is the incentive to invest into unlocking a below average unit requiring 2 additional cards that you might not have the chance to send?
So it should have even stronger base stats than it is now, cost more but benefit less from the cards, if they are not going to change the accessibility.


This is clearly not the case, longbow cost wood and are not as good at killing heavy infantry as vanilla Skirms. Nazim Fusiliers are mercenary like units, Rangers are not mercenary units.

The context of my post is clearly late game. I have compared the stats with other units like the Cassador with the same treatment of 3 cards, Advanced Arsenal and All Upgrades done, and so the comparisons I am making are fair.

The brits have the ability to get huss and musks with 3 cards and the Guard upgrade. They also have Rockets and 3 cards for their Grenadiers. I just don’t see why they should also be able to have the best (except for Italy) European Skirm.

I never said they should be countered with Skrims. When you play late game and there is a large mass of units fighting, there will be times when the same class of units fight each other. My point is that if you have the better Skirm then you will be making better trades. These Skirms beat vanilla Skirms be a decent amount.

If you like the brits having such a strong late game Skirm then you are welcome to that opinion. I just don’t agree.

I think they should just get 20 range without having to send any cards, stop them from getting 2 range more than other skirms, a damage decrease so they are in line with the Cassador and fix their heavy infantry multiplier so it can only reach x3 rather than x3.25.

1 Like

If the context is late game then it’s worth noting that brits economy is nothing special compared to other civs. The free vills with houses doesn’t matter late game. Their units are also not particularly special with only the hussar being a really good unit. Musk aren’t very good late game and longbow cost wood. So I’m perfectly fine with the ranger being a good late game unit for them.
Early game it’s very expensive/hard to obtain and is inferior to other skirms without sending cards,


how are you coming to this conclusion?


So in this case then think of longbows like janissaries - very strong early game but not outstanding late game. Then after an expensive church tech card you get access to Nizam Fusiliers, which are an elite version of there base unit - janissary. The British now have the same option as Ottomans with their access to Rangers. Rangers need to be an above average unit or no one would bother spending all those additional resources converting all their Longbows to them.

I’m really not sure where you’re getting the idea that Nizams are mercenaries though. They are not available in the Tavern, have a food cost (not just coin) and are not countered by spies or ninjas.

I understand that you are coming from a purely late-game stance but we need to take this into context…

You’re playing British - you have managed to make it to Age 4 lets say - you’re here because your big Age 2/3 push failed - you’re now low on coin because you spent it all making hussars and musks (Brits are rarely low on food coz of livestock card) - you’re falling behind technological - you’re French or German opponent is really starting to push hard snipping all your musk with their Voltigeurs and Needle Gunners - you’re option is either save up coin to get to Age 5 (probably by sending your factory cards) or spend 2000 coin on getting Rangers - what’s your decision gunna be???

You really need Rangers to be a stand out unit that’s going to really positively help you in the game to make the hassle of getting them worth while. The British Economy late game really needs a rework as its not particularly strong.

Cassadors along with pretty much all vanilla euro skirms have far more hitpoints than Rangers do. This can really make the difference between a hussar needing three hits to defeat them or four. We used to think of Cassadors as being the best skirmisher at being a skirmisher but now Rangers might have taken their crown.

Don’t forget 3 HC cards for Dragoons too :rofl:
And theroetically 5 cards for grenadiers (if you count “grenade launchers” and “improved grenades”)

So if you think that Bersaglieres are top skirmisher then surely shouldn’t they be nerfed before Rangers? They are a lot more accessible than them too (even though you have to wait till Age 4). Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next big update for Brits they introduce Ranger to the barracks as an Age 4 unit (maybe with increase cost).

Haha we can agree to disagree then :grin:

They would just be a clone unit then - an exact copy of a Cassador but with a different skin. This would be pretty dull. I like the fact that a lot of new and old civs are getting their own unit features and play styles.

Brits always had trouble dealing with masses of HI in the mid and late game. They lacked a proper skirmisher that could deal with those masses, and this is what the ranger does.

This was the case before. Despite being weak against HI, longbowmen dominated other skirmishers. In reality, this ranger isn’t that big of a change and it requires a lot of investment, so it has to be viable.


Yeah agree with previous posts. So many cards need to be invested to reach this stats. Impractical in real game


Nerf Brits they are ridiculous. They get vils w houses for gods sake.

Yeah, they should lose a vil for each house.


British Rangers are fine. They require investment and choosing over Longbowmen to fully utilise them.

Personally I think the whole dual-use Longbow/Ranger HC shipments are very convoluted. They should just be skirms that are normally trainable from Industrial that require Shipment investment to make them great, with the downside that they are available later than normal skirms and require cards to get their best out of them. Funnily enough that’s quite true to life - Brits were slow to adapt to light infantry rifle skirmishers however ended up with a well-trained elite bunch.


This is factually wrong, brits were among the first to make organized light infantry groups, before them only germans actually made group of jaegers that were used in battle
Since the war of the seven years in which they had to fight against natives and french in america brits started experimenting with light infantry groups

1 Like

AOE3 confuses generic skirmishers/light infantry with riflemen. These are somewhat different though there is some overlap.

Before the appearance of line infantry basically all firearm units are (or can be) skirmishers. They could fire in volleys but cannot form a sturdy line due to their weakness in melee. Maurice of Nassau detached some musketeers from the pike and shot formations for skirmishing. Thats probably why Dutch are given early skirmishers, though they were different from the long-range rifle units represented in game. Skirmishers do not need to have long range. Sometimes they even carried smaller arms with shorter range for portability.

After that, skirmishers using muskets were still common in Central/Eastern Europe, North America, and any place where irregular warfare is important. Western Europe began adopt similar doctrines in late 1700s. British were kinda slow in that for sure (not in its colonies though).

For all of these above cases we’re talking about mostly muskets.

But when it comes to rifles, British were among the first to raise regular rifle corps. On the contrary, Napoleon’s army had few rifles because he considered them as cumbersome.

Edit: the in-game skirmisher type is a bit ambiguous. He could be a rifleman, or a musketeer with longer range because he does not need to fire in volleys. There are some dedicated riflemen, but also arquebusiers.


Experimenting is the key word here. British light infantry were created and disbanded frequently with them generally being denigrated by higher-ups and thought of just experimental at first. They did perform well in the Seven Years war, however they were soon disbanded/amalgated into the regular remigents after their ‘job’ was done as British military culture didn’t see light infantry/skirmishers as a ‘proper’ role until the late 18th century where there is a restructuring which included dedicated light infantry.

I agree, it is rather ambiguous! I always see Skirmisher-types as any gunpowder light infantry used for screening ahead of the main army, though If I’d had my way we would have Arquebusiers/Calivermen as archaic ‘skirmisher’ later into the current ones.

1 Like

Empire and Napoleon Total War did better on this: there is the general-purpose light infantry with muskets (only slightly longer range than line infantry, can adopt volley formation but not a tight one, which should apply to most non-linear gunpowder infantry) and riflemen (very loose formation, small unit size, long range, slow reload, which is a very specialized unit).
Well but then it is too specialized…they need to separate caçadores as a light infantry regiment and atiradores as a rifleman regiment while the latter is part of the former.
Turns out it’s because military organizations are far more diverse than the “unit types” a game could represent.

1 Like

This is once again wrong, it is true that at the time of the seven years war all nations didn’t had permanent formations of light infantry, they were always ad hoc units and were mostly formed by irregulars militia forces that would disband after the war conclusion, but all the other is wrong, what in the game are called rangers are a formation that started in 1800 and was officially formed in 1802, two years before the formation of voltiguers from napoleon in 1804, of course all these formations had precedent ones that were part of the line infantry formations… British were among the first nations to actually form official permanent light infantry formations…
If we go with ad hoc formations they were still among the first to do so since they were the ones that most had to do with war against the natives in north america which is where the skirmish tactics had to be used since the terrain and the enemy

1 Like

‘All the other is wrong?’
It was well known that British military culture was bumbling around light infantry and even more so rifle-armed light infantry.

Firstly native British soldiers come from a country with no forrested/alpine borders to which is how huntsman/riflemen culture would form (though the Scottish Highlanders would tick that box but were almost always seen and used as the fierce scary guys charging in rather than skirmishing) which meant prior to the Seven Years War they almost always hired Swiss and German mercs/auxillaries.
Secondly Brits were very conservative with military doctrine so after light infantry had served their purpose they were quick to disband (this included some early rifle-using units such as Ferguson’s which were seen as to expensive to aquire and mantain), not learn anything from it (with again, no real native woodsmen culture as light infantry stock) and focus on the contemporary militaries such as Frederick the Great’s, who focused on rigid but well-drilled line tactics - even higher-ups such as Sir David Dundas, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army disliked Light Infantry tactics (even though Generals like Cornwallis and Howe were in favor of them during the War of Indepence) and actually downplayed any notion of their prowess.

To add to the bumbling, the British light infantry proved disastrous in 1799 at Flanders (Revolutionary Wars) - awful tactics and worse leadership, compared to the far more experienced French skirmishers, which luckily led to infantry reforms (with help to the Duke of York), and more importanly in this case, led to the creation of a permanent Light Division.

(Robert’s) Rangers refers to the unit of 1755–1763 which used muskets and a few rifles, though the in-game model could a Ranger except it has the 95th Rifles badge from the 19th century, so I wouldn’t take too much stock in that. I guess it’s to show British Rangers from the 18th century ‘evolving’ into the Rifle units of the 19th century (with the more famous 95th being the unit model).

1800 was the birth of the Experimental Corp of Riflemen (a name that re-enforces British views at the time) and became officially established as the 95th under the tutelage and then famed leadership (during thenPeninsular War) of with General Sir John Moore from 1803. Yes, these were before Voltiguers, however the French had other existing and experienced light infantry before then as well as a more positive view of light infantry doctrine. Once we get to the 1800s, the Brits are rather good riflemen/light infantry.

Technically the first British Rifles totally equipped with rifles were from the 60th Regiment (5th Battalion) in 1797 (though originally raised during the Seven Years War they didn’t have green uniforms nor entirely rifles until 1797 and had numerous battalions disbanded prior), which were used in the Napoleonics and War of 1812 (7th Battalion). They, like their predecessors were almost entirely German/Swiss with forest/hunting experience.

Anyway, to bring it all round to my original comment:

Yep, I still stick with my initial statement.

Sources: Rifles (Mark Urban - a really great read backed with legit sources), UK’s official army pages and the 95th’s site. Also, not against the British in anyway - I’m a native Brit :smiley:


Thank you for your well informed and referenced response. I’ll go give it a read.

Hahah me too :uk:

It seems like on these forums Team games (tend to run longer than 1v1s) and Treaty games don’t count as real games.

The card that extends their range to 22 is part of every Brits deck. It will usually be sent by the time you get to age 4. Then the card that enables them is a must if the game goes passed age 4 since you would rather have a Skirm that costs gold and food rather than wood and food. Most people get Counter infantry rifling if they use skirms. Here we arrive at a skirm that is better than a vanilla skirm in Damage, Range, HI multiplier and Range Resist.