The fact that RPGs beat striker and ranger route doesn't mean that strikers and rangers are useless, it just means they have different uses.
SAs beat RPGs. Does that mean we should get rid of RPG route because SAs beat them?
But Rangers beat SAs. Does that mean we should get rid of Rangers?
But RPGs beat rangers. Does that mean we should get rid of RPGs?
But SAs beat RPGs. Does that mean we should get rid of SAs?
But Rangers beat SAs. Does that mean we should get rid of Rangers?
But
But
But
You see what I'm saying? One route beating another doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the game.
really cuz rangers dont fire til AFTER sa and assassins and they much like rpgs are easy to mass.. ive seen more times that not Secret agents smash harriers/ranger routes. They have pretty much the same weaknesses so why are they even around? TL's pwn military in general right? as do fanatics and extremists.....give me two uses for the other two routres that rpg route cant handle because SA's i dont buy..too many players play that route and its easy to mass them without anyone knowing what you have.Only real weakness they have are poms tbh.
Secret Agents beating RPGs is one of the safest bets in the game. Why? Because RPGs do nothing to secret agents; almost zero damage. Snipers do hurt SAs, but they fire AFTER SAs, meaning it's usually too late.
In the same way, Rangers are well known for hurting SA/Sin, because even though the SAs/sins fire first, they do barely any damage. Rangers have both health and armour. When the SAs fire, the Rangers still have their armour on, and SAs don't do armour damage, so the SA fire bounces off. When the sins fire they take the Rangers armour off, but the sins don't do any health damage so the rangers survive. Then the rangers fire and wtfpwn.
Harriers are more useful than RPGs against robots in alot of situations, because they fire after poms/SAs, allowing the pom/sa to clear away health flak, meaning the harriers do ALOT more damage to robots than RPGs could.
F117s are excellent pom killers.
Striker/Apache can fight SAs while RPGs can't.
Strikers can also be alot more useful than RPGs against armour for the same reasons as harrier; that they fire later allowing for flak to be cleared.
Striker/Apache is ALOT tougher than RPG, meaning you can send them into big alliance battles and come away with very little damage, while an RPG would take LOADS of damage.
Similarly, Rangers are alot more useful in big alliance battles as they target pure LET, not LET/ALL, and fire in the sweet spot between too early and too late, so flak can be cleared before they fire but they do damage before the late firers.
In alot of high-end alliance play you have to be able to last tick a target during mass incoming. RPG/Sniper is absolutely useless for this.
--------------
There are PLENTY of situations where a striker or ranger is more useful than an RPG. Alot of people might agree with you that Ranger route is under-powered, but that has nothing to do with the RPG damage bonus. And you'd be hard pressed to find anyone agreeing that strikers are under-powered.