Ranger infantry

[Toltrin]

I don't know why this made another comment.
Sorry.
I put a lot of work into those Rangers. I even play tested them and found them to be map controllers rather than a blunt force unit. Since they keep their combat advantage in overruns they are very effective in controlling territory.

[catenate]

I was playtesting my own Ranger idea, from the top of the thread. I don't yet have the whole idea of airborne: maybe I could implement that by placing rangers on the board during the defense's first move, rather than before the Ogre's first move. Should the rangers still be subject to the 20-attack-strength limit ahead of the crater line, in that case? I'd add back in that extra 1 infantry-point cost to parachute in next to the Ogre, wherever he comes in, and adding to the front-line 20; or maybe saving them to parachute in at a critical point in the game.

[catenate]

I think we're having the same problem that the US Army really had defining the set of capabilities that comprise a "Ranger".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...m_.22Ranger.22

I'm pretty sure there's room for both my conception and yours in the unofficial game, under different names (for possibly both units). There are a few things in common (-1TH for instance) but I'm not sure how much my idea competes with or replaces yours, and I'm not interested in reducing the variety of units in the game (since I'm not the line editor;). A larger variety of playtested units helps people decide what's popular and useful enough to put in common use. A marketplace of unit ideas, so to speak.

[hcobb]

My concept on rangers was that they used stealth instead of the networked defenses of ordinary infantry. That meant that they did not combine into larger stacks. (They simply stacked up as independent units and took spillover.)

Atk: 1/1, Move: 3, Def: 2 (Does not combine into larger units)

That keeps them down to 3 VPs each.

[catenate]

What do you have them do with an attack strength of 1?

What formula did you use to come up with the VP count?

I like the idea that they don't combine into larger units, which would diminish stealth. Further, mine should lose their -1 TH if they occupy a hex with other infantry units.

D2 M3
[RGR]
RANGER
3/1

D1 M3
[RGR]
RANGER
2/1

Defense rules: Opponent suffers -1 to hit them if they are alone in their hex. They do not combine with other infantry units, including ones of the same type.

Cost: RANGER 3/1 costs 3 infantry points; RANGER 2/1 costs 2 infantry points.

***

Forking my current definition of ranger into "airborne special-operations infantry" (using the map icon for Airborne Special Ops), since I would think parachuting in anywhere at will makes more gameplay difference than the stats.

D2 M3
[infantry symbol, wings in bottom triangle, solid star in top triangle]
AIR SPEC
3/1

D1 M3
[infantry symbol, wings in bottom triangle, solid star in top triangle]
AIR SPEC
2/1

Defense rules: Opponent suffers -1 to hit them if they are alone in their hex. They do not combine with other infantry units, including ones of the same type.

Move rules: Placed anywhere on the board during their player's movement phase, at any time during the game.

Cost: AIR SPEC 3/1 costs 4 infantry points; AIR SPEC 2/1 costs 3 infantry points. Their costs are counted against initial total infantry strength, but not against initial force limits in particular parts of the board (since they're added in after the game starts).

[hcobb]

Fully stealthed Rangers:

Atk 1, Def 1, Move 3

Does not combine into larger units.

CAN NOT be directly targeted outside of an overrun. All non-overrun fire against them is conducted as spillover. (Lasers fire normally against them, but at half strength.)

In overruns their specialized training gives them tripled attack strength, rather than doubled.

4 VPs per squad.