How good is the Ranger?

I’ve been playing some British lately in ranked. At least in team the age 4 Ranger swap card seems very strong now that it researches Guard. 22 Range and 4.25 speed is great, but obviously your losing 4 range and are taking a fairly large raw DPS hit (though you’re gaining substantially vs heavy infantry). Also, 60f 60c is a bit more expensive than a Longbowmen.

How good are Rangers? Are they actually a significant upgrade over Longbowmen (a very strong unit in its own right)?

Well, here I present the comparison between both units (in imperial and fully buffed). You can draw conclusions.

Personally, I can tell you that the LB has a bad initial attack animation and can’t do hit and run, if you leave it still it does a lot of damage. Also, the fact that it costs wood (a resource a little slower than gold) can be a disadvantage.

3 Likes

I checked in the contract. In a shootout of skirmishers they win almost everyone. The problem is that the British have much more food than gold… Again, experience with Russians shows that in clinch fights, cheapness always wins.

I find the cost changes quite interesting. In a standard Sup game, coin is better, until later you want food/wood (mines run out), then, if it goes long enough you want coin again (safe trees run out). When fully upgraded the extra ~14 hp and 5% RR seem nice.

The firing animation seems like the big deal. Being able to hit and run vs skirms in early industrial should be pretty good. Hard to say if they’re worth ~15% more though (after the swap card). Maybe they could use +5 base hp or make Guard Rangers a RG upgrade with an extra 10% hp. Renaming them to “Green Jackets” I think was a request someone previously for historical reasons.

1 Like

Personally I think the longbowman should not be replaced, and should not have 4th and 5th age upgrades, and the ranger should be available by default from age 4 onwards.

Some cards should be modified accordingly.

6 Likes

Stat wise and fully upgraded, I believe they are the highest damage skirmisher out there, both in flat damage and in multiplier vs Heavy Infantry

1 Like

The multiplier vs Heavy Infantry is definitely true. Only one or two Native units beat them on multipliers (but with less attack).

As for damage, Mexico can beat them substantially in Hitpoints, while being able to get 46 attack and being able to match their 22 range. Having said that, I see your point (Mexico’s skirms are super op so it’s a bad comparison). I think Cassadors max out at 42 damage, while having less range.

I might be coming around to there. My concern would be an age 4 skirm implies that they should be Guard immediately when you age up (like Italian Bergs). This could be too much tempo.

Simple, you need to improve it.

1 Like

I don’t find them particularly good. Longbow kills other skirmishes, and have a great DPS in general.

Sure, they are good against heavy infantry, but Brits musketeer and eco is so good that does not matter that much. Is not like Brits struggle in musketeer wars (They actually exceed at) or with any heavy infantry spam.

At the end of the day, I think you just trade a really good unique unit for a mediocre skirmisher. Not a good deal.

1 Like

I think Rangers are a good unit when used in the right context, but they’re not very viable in 1v1 supremacy games. The process to obtain them is too convoluted and not cost-effective, which makes them difficult to justify in fast-paced matches.

However, Rangers truly shine in long treaty games. They only cost food and coin, which is a major advantage since wood often becomes scarce in the late stages of these games. Additionally, treaty games provide enough time to fully upgrade them with Home City cards, giving them a significant range advantage.

Units should always be assessed as part of a greater composition, and I find Rangers work particularly well when paired with Hussars. The heavy cavalry serves as a strong meat shield, absorbing damage, while the fragile Rangers can safely deal high damage from a distance. This combination is especially effective against civilizations that lack strong melee cavalry.

In treaty games, I’d rely on Rangers and Hussars for most of the unit-to-unit fighting, occasionally adding Grenadiers to help break through enemy walls.

Overall, I think Rangers are an excellent unit in the right setting, especially in treaty games where their strengths can be fully utilized.

2 Likes

2 Likes

It’s nice to see them all side-by-side, but I think Mexico is missing some upgrades. I think you missed the Arsenal, possibly Smokeless Powder from the Jesuits, and maybe the flag buff (though you could go either way on that). With all the aforementioned and the age 5 flag buff card Mexico can get 46 attack.

I fixed it. Only counted units with techs and cards because you won’t always be near stuff to get a Aura.

everything looks surprisingly balanced considering how quishy the ranger is with only 214 HP .

Taking that into account I think it trades evenly with the vigilante at that current stat

Both having the same range and both taking 9 shots from the other to kill (assuming no rounding shenanigans)

The cassador is actually outright better except for range (taking 11 shots while the ranger only takes 9 )

same with the neftenya (but they have less range)

1 Like

Still there are people saying Gurkhas are top tier skirmishers… what a joke looking everyone else counterparts

extra range on skirms is invaluable in treaty, especially since rangers have such a high damage output.