m113 V Stryker

[Murderlake]

I'm currently deciding whether I should run two Founder assault forces using Strykers or M113s for transport. I get mixed messages as to the comparative usefulness of these two vehicles.

The higher supply cost of the Stryker suggests that it is "better" but in what way exactly? Obviously the smoke and remote control MG are bonuses, but I can't seem to find information on comparative armour strength which is what realistically matters to me.

[wei270]

from experience strike has strong frontal armor. but weaker side armor. compare to m113
but strike runs on wheels which is alot more vunable compare to the track.
snipers can kill the gunner of m113 where stryker has no operator for its autonomic mechine gun.
but because it is autonomic you are limited with your weapons selection. where you can't equip reconilles rifles and grandes lunchers
so the only weapons for the strike is default 50cal or the heavy plasma machine gun.
M113 carry 12? people
while strike carry 10

but the best part about the strike is the smoke. smoke is the best defence in the game where not only does it protect your self it also protect your allies.
And in this game smoke is also ECM. Most of us here use striker over the M113 is because of the smoke

[Darth Glorious]

Originally posted by wei270:

from experience strike has strong frontal armor. but weaker side armor. compare to m113
but strike runs on wheels which is alot more vunable compare to the track.
snipers can kill the gunner of m113 where stryker has no operator for its autonomic mechine gun.
but because it is autonomic you are limited with your weapons selection. where you can't equip reconilles rifles and grandes lunchers
so the only weapons for the strike is default 50cal or the heavy plasma machine gun.
M113 carry 12? people
while strike carry 10

but the best part about the strike is the smoke. smoke is the best defence in the game where not only does it protect your self it also protect your allies.
And in this game smoke is also ECM. Most of us here use striker over the M113 is because of the smoke

I equipped my Strykers with 40mm M19 just fine.

[Thandrall]

Originally posted by Darth Glorious:

Originally posted by wei270:

from experience strike has strong frontal armor. but weaker side armor. compare to m113
but strike runs on wheels which is alot more vunable compare to the track.
snipers can kill the gunner of m113 where stryker has no operator for its autonomic mechine gun.
but because it is autonomic you are limited with your weapons selection. where you can't equip reconilles rifles and grandes lunchers
so the only weapons for the strike is default 50cal or the heavy plasma machine gun.
M113 carry 12? people
while strike carry 10

but the best part about the strike is the smoke. smoke is the best defence in the game where not only does it protect your self it also protect your allies.
And in this game smoke is also ECM. Most of us here use striker over the M113 is because of the smoke

I equipped my Strykers with 40mm M19 and recoiless gun just fine. There are no weapon limitation with Strykers.

you can't equipment recoilless onto the stryker. The 40mm yes, but not recoilless.

[Booba]

The value of the Stryker's remote control MG is a bit misleading. You're still going to lose crew to hits, it's just that the gunner won't be targeted by small arms fire. Unless you're constantly making the mistake of driving your M113 into gatling Revs, chances are, you're not going to lose too many gunners to small arms anyway.

In all, the M113 is the more meta choice, just by virtue of lower supply costs and being able to mount more weapon choices. The Stryker's smoke isn't something to be disdained however. That smoke can save lives and carry a push, when a Spider AT or Cartel Templar unexpectedly burps out a missile from beyond visual range. It's also cool as ♥♥♥♥ to pop smoke in the face of a strong building and drop ramps for a kill team of Guerrilla and Ranger death commandos.

[14285714]

They have similar baseline armor, but M113 can have ceramic armor upgrade(which grant high resistance to plasma weapons and rockets) later in the game while stryker can have only carbon fabric armor, making it tougher under terminators fire. However, stryker is significantly faster than M113, if you want to rush a building with enemy inside, stryker is better as it can close the distance faster, avoid exposing itself under enemy fire for too long.

[SPQR Flamidius Chlamidius]

Both cost too much not worth the price at all on higher difficulties take truck with trailer you have heavy weapon + 2 other weapons + transport for same price

[wei270]

yeah i did not go for trailer weapons but after forth worth i actually think trailer weapons are the better way to go.

[Neyreyan_Youtube]

They are not worth it for most of the game. After chihuaha they start to get usefull and are needed.
The stryker is more durable,faster and more useful.
You can keep your infantry in it, use smoke and assault building.
The apc is trash until a big later when it gets ceramic armor, stryker only has junk armor.
You would need 2 of each since missions restrict vehicles and there are 300+ infantry enemies.
They are also good to carry atgms, mines, c4 or recoiless teams aceoss the map since they can rearm from being inside.
The 50 cal is the best option until later since it can disable human crews and get you nice vehicles to sell.

[HeathenSW]

Originally posted by Neyreyan_Youtube:

They are not worth it for most of the game. After chihuaha they start to get usefull and are needed.
The stryker is more durable,faster and more useful.
You can keep your infantry in it, use smoke and assault building.
The apc is trash until a big later when it gets ceramic armor, stryker only has junk armor.
You would need 2 of each since missions restrict vehicles and there are 300+ infantry enemies.
They are also good to carry atgms, mines, c4 or recoiless teams aceoss the map since they can rearm from being inside.
The 50 cal is the best option until later since it can disable human crews and get you nice vehicles to sell.

I agree. I stopped using them as soon as I got them and was surprised that it's the heaviest type of vehicle allowed on some maps till half-mission point and you can't bring Bradleys everywhere everytime.

It's also amazing that the default weapon for vehicles are actually generally good in this game and not "replace ASAP" - I made a mistake replacing every single one of them the first time I played and it was junky.

[MK_101]

They all use "light vehicle weapons" except Stryker's weapon is remotely controlled so you won't risk losing your gunner, on the other hand it can't use recoilless guns or TOW.
Armor are pretty much the same cause they can only bully infantry and technicals that have no real anti-vehicle weapons.
Personally I only use Strykers cause they are much faster, very early on you can get carbon fiber armor in shop and that's all the protection it needs. All my Strykers use laser MG (granade launchers are much better against infantry in building but by the time they become a real problem, they are often accompanied by RPG squads so grenade launcher's short range makes it useless)

[Falcon_BR]

WTF guys?
I use m113 with ATGM, because the have 8 shots, vs just 6 of light vehicles.
The striker, on the same mission you get it, the rev6 that comes from the abrams have 3 plasma guns, just place it on the striker and you will kill even legion tanks with it, it is the best support vehicle in the game with the plasma.

[Ook Oook]

I just want to clarify a misconception here, the striker has better armor in the front and sides while having the same HP.

[HeathenSW]

Originally posted by Ook - Dispenser of Liber-Tea:

I just want to clarify a misconception here, the striker has better armor in the front and sides while having the same HP.

Yeah.

Name	Health	Sides armor	Forward armor	Back armor
M113	450	40	50	40
Stryker	450	50	82	40
M113 Junk	500	40	59	40
Stryker Junk	500	59	100	40
M113 Carbon	450	59	82	40
Stryker Carbon	450	82	120	50
M113 Ceramic	480	40	59	40
Stryker Ceramic	480	55	94	50

Mind that different armour has different resists. Both of them count as vehicles in game in terms of armour and not tanks, so it should be like that:

Name	Ap resist	HE resist	Plasma resist
Base/junk	0.69	1.5	0.69
Carbon	0.69	1.5	0.47
Ceramic	0.69	3.99	4.1

Carbon is TERRIBLE against plasma. Take that base Styker has front armour of 82 - if we add Carbon armor there it'll become 120, but if we shoot at it with plasma it'll register as being only 56 (120*0.47), due to it being weak to plasma. So anything that has Carbon armour will be lit up in an instant by Legion basically.

On the other hand say M113 got itself Ceramic armour and got shot from the front - whopping 241 (59*4.1) armour against plasma. It will still degrade with enough shots taken, but it should not get oneshotted. For reference, base Bradley has 180 front armour and it does not get oneshotted by plasma usualy.

[MK_101]

You sure the damage resistance is not (1+modifier)? Decreasing damage resistance doesn't make sense cause they are all separate add-on armor that increase weight (It's very obvious when you look at the model of ceramic armor, it's cage + ceramic plates on top of the vehicle)

[FissileUngulate]

M113 is pretty much the ideal vehicle based ATGM platform. Just tanky enough to usually not melt instantly, and a deep ammo reserve.... and it shouldn't be getting shot at anyway engaging at 140-200 range ish.

Stryker is better for QRF and assaulting with smoke, and providing cover with a plasma MG with no gunner exposure for cleaning chaff. For myself it isn't either or.