Founder unit bad?

[14285714]

After playing the game for a while, I can't help but feel that founder units are generally less cost efficient than their movement counter part. Movement vans have the same fire power and more space to carry infantries compare to Humvee, while needing much less supply. Main tractor is faster and tougher comparing to M113, and take only half the supply cost to maintain.

For infantries, this is even more obvious. Militia is cheaper and have more man than founder infantry, whose rocket launcher rarely come to use. Sharpshooters can be upgraded to a 3 man team, giving them more survivablity and firepower than sniper team. Guerrilla can use C4 and EMP grenades, and their shotguns are very deadly against light vehicles and legion infantry. Rangers, on the other hand, are only good against human enemies, encounter with rev-6, legion spiders or legion tanks rarely go well for the rangers.

All in all, outside of a few unit that can't be replaced with movement counter part(missile squad, engineers, drivers, tank crews, etc), using movement unit always seem to be the better choice. Is this just my prejudice or is this the fact?

[Sardonac]

I've generally experienced founders infantry to be strong but expensive. Movement is probably easier to deal with but to be honest even on hard I don't think the supply cost of infantry is the problem, large numbers of vehicles are the supply challenge.

That said - I think founders standard infantry are very good, particularly once they get their plasma LMG. They're very durable and I've used them to farm light vehicles for experience pretty easily, and even used a pair to kill tanks in Oklahoma. Movement militia are only useful for defense in my experience. Sharpshooters are better than snipers when upgraded to 3 soldiers but snipers mesh better with transport capacities. ATGM infantry are great, and while heavy weapons troops are useful for recoilless rifles I find APCs to be better carriers for those. Engineers I find to be useful for versatility but they're not that different from technicians really.

I agree that rangers are a little weak for the cost. I turn off the 40mm grenade launcher most of the time because its not great damage, and the single sniper rifle isn't special either. I do like having a ranger squad with emp/c4 and runspeed, as its an interesting sneaky saboteur. Not that different from guerrillas.

[TrytoLive]

No no ) Movement battle-vagon is worse than any tank or bredly becose ... common you should saw how bad he moves on the ground . And while movement have no normal tanks it will be always worse then Founders . I try skirmish even with bots its much more difficult defeat legion with Movement .

[FissileUngulate]

Generally the founder units are tankier, across all these options, and late game have the best upgrades for coping with plasma weapons and the like, or shlepping squads around the map, helping provide some QRF or fire support more reliably. The last thing I think anyone really wants to deal with is driving the battle bus (armored carrier) around the final mission, catching every stray bullet fired from anywhere on the map.

[HeathenSW]

If you think rpgs and other rockets are useless - try getting rocket man perk. It looses your 33% of your anti-tank rockets, but gives 66% as an additional HE ammo rocket type, that you can use against light/medium vehicles, against infantry, against buildings and whatever else. Get powerlifter and now you have 100% anti-tank rockets again PLUS another 100% HE rockets. This perk made me love founder infantry even more and made RPG teams pretty amazing.

Militia is a trash meatshield unit. I tried to make them work, I really did, even get couple to lvl 4 - they can only hold buildings and maybe storm buildings if there are humans inside. Other than that they can't do anything against any type of vehicle at all. Rangers/founder infantry can deal with vehicles.

Rangers can get EMP and C4 as well, just as guerillas. Plus they have laser sniper rifle with them and it's ~241 damage per shot to any infantry - two shots are enough to kill a rev (they have 350hp). Grenade launcher is meh - you can turn it off and thus gain another rifle, which usually will net you more damage.

Anything infantry fares badly against revs, EXCEPT if it has rockets. Revs are classified as light vehicles, so your infantry will use their AT rockets against them. Even ATGM crews use their ATGM against them if you are not careful.

Snipers are kinda bad, you are correct. They are perfect scouts since they have higher camo value then sharpshooters, but that's it. That perk that gives them 10% more damage is a useless trap: barret rifle deals 200 damage against infantry (plus 28 AP damage) thus oneshotting homunculi (220hp per model). This perk only increases damage against infantry, thus giving you 220+28 total damage. Still one shot for homunculi. And still two shots to kill a rev. Sharpshooters that have another person on the team have much more damage potential.

In many situations to get the same flexability that founder squad provides you'll need 2+ movement squads. Founder infantry - militia+rpg team. Rangers - militia+guerillas+sharpshooters. Engineers - guerillas+technicians. And so on. They are only strictly worse in survivability, since 2+ movement squads can easily loose more squad members than 1 founder squad. Well, and snipers are strictly worse than sharprhooters.

I love founder infantry more since I do not like to micromanage all that much and having tons of squads gives me headache.

[14285714]

Originally posted by HeathenSW:

If you think rpgs and other rockets are useless - try getting rocket man perk. It looses your 33% of your anti-tank rockets, but gives 66% as an additional HE ammo rocket type, that you can use against light/medium vehicles, against infantry, against buildings and whatever else. Get powerlifter and now you have 100% anti-tank rockets again PLUS another 100% HE rockets. This perk made me love founder infantry even more and made RPG teams pretty amazing.

Militia is a trash meatshield unit. I tried to make them work, I really did, even get couple to lvl 4 - they can only hold buildings and maybe storm buildings if there are humans inside. Other than that they can't do anything against any type of vehicle at all. Rangers/founder infantry can deal with vehicles.

Rangers can get EMP and C4 as well, just as guerillas. Plus they have laser sniper rifle with them and it's ~241 damage per shot to any infantry - two shots are enough to kill a rev (they have 350hp). Grenade launcher is meh - you can turn it off and thus gain another rifle, which usually will net you more damage.

Anything infantry fares badly against revs, EXCEPT if it has rockets. Revs are classified as light vehicles, so your infantry will use their AT rockets against them. Even ATGM crews use their ATGM against them if you are not careful.

Snipers are kinda bad, you are correct. They are perfect scouts since they have higher camo value then sharpshooters, but that's it. That perk that gives them 10% more damage is a useless trap: barret rifle deals 200 damage against infantry (plus 28 AP damage) thus oneshotting homunculi (220hp per model). This perk only increases damage against infantry, thus giving you 220+28 total damage. Still one shot for homunculi. And still two shots to kill a rev. Sharpshooters that have another person on the team have much more damage potential.

In many situations to get the same flexability that founder squad provides you'll need 2+ movement squads. Founder infantry - militia+rpg team. Rangers - militia+guerillas+sharpshooters. Engineers - guerillas+technicians. And so on. They are only strictly worse in survivability, since 2+ movement squads can easily loose more squad members than 1 founder squad. Well, and snipers are strictly worse than sharprhooters.

I love founder infantry more since I do not like to micromanage all that much and having tons of squads gives me headache.

I'm not saying rpg is useless, but it only become useful in offensive assault or ambush, since it has shorter range than most vehicle mounted weapon. instead of keeping founder infantry I just keep two rocket squad for those occasion. They can also serve as driver, as a bonus.

As for militia, they actually do decent damage if you give them better weapon, good for keeping homunculi and suicide drones away from your precious sharpshooters and heavy weapon team. As long as they hide inside a tough building,they are doing great.

Unlike ranger, guerrilla need no upgrade for using C4, they can also use plasma shotgun, the only infantry weapon I know that can destroy a squad of charging Rev-6 with 0 casualty, also good for blasting spiders. Ranger on the other hand don't have any chances against Rev-6, which could be a problem when on recon duty.

Selling all founder infantry, Humvee and APC and replace them with movement counter part usually save 5k upkeep. For me, this is a good trade off. Especially in early game, saving those resources for an extra Bradley really make many mission much easier.

[REhorror]

Battle wagons are useless the moment you have 2 Bradley.

For the other point, I don't know at the moment, Movement infantries make up by having cheaper cost, more body and more specialized roles.

I can say ATGM soldier > Rocket troops tho.

[Nelson]

Founder Units tend to be expensive and less specialised than movement ones. They really outperform them on a per-slot basis though.

If you use a mod that uncaps reinforcements, they immediately turn into expensive toys. Otherwise, they are about the best vanguard you can deploy as they can fill important niches with only 1 unit instead of needing 2 or 3.

[Haks]

Originally posted by Sardonac:

I've generally experienced founders infantry to be strong but expensive. Movement is probably easier to deal with but to be honest even on hard I don't think the supply cost of infantry is the problem, large numbers of vehicles are the supply challenge.

That said - I think founders standard infantry are very good, particularly once they get their plasma LMG. They're very durable and I've used them to farm light vehicles for experience pretty easily, and even used a pair to kill tanks in Oklahoma. Movement militia are only useful for defense in my experience. Sharpshooters are better than snipers when upgraded to 3 soldiers but snipers mesh better with transport capacities. ATGM infantry are great, and while heavy weapons troops are useful for recoilless rifles I find APCs to be better carriers for those. Engineers I find to be useful for versatility but they're not that different from technicians really.

I agree that rangers are a little weak for the cost. I turn off the 40mm grenade launcher most of the time because its not great damage, and the single sniper rifle isn't special either. I do like having a ranger squad with emp/c4 and runspeed, as its an interesting sneaky saboteur. Not that different from guerrillas.

I would like to add that movement snipers have the worst armour that is present in the game. I had them die very often, while the founders snipers died rarely.

Having played the game twice on realism I came to the conclusion that the founders need their own type of armour. After I made them their own armour type, the founders really started to feel like elite troops instead of bums. I also found it necessary to increase the ranger squad to 7 men and added a machine gun like Cherj's squad. The infantry squad I added 1 machine gun and a rocket launcher each.

[wei270]

i agree right now it feel like founder units for their cost dies too easily to justify using them over the cheaper while still very effective movement units.

i think the situation is the movement units are the ak47 and rpgs 7 in the real world. cheap but efficient, you don't need a high quality good tool that can do everything for you, you just need a tool to get the job done.

while founder units are like all the nato weapons, expensive, design with complicated engineering to face problem they think they will run in to, and pack with all the high tech, but the problem is in war you take loses, and nato equipment is bottom line not design to take loses, they are just too expensive and takes too long to make.

[Filip STI]

Founder units are less specialized and on missions where you have limited units they generaly do better. But lets be honest, if we would play a high attrition style (meaning using alot of infantry for offence) we wouldnt have enough replacements in shops.

Engagments ,for me at least ,always end badly if I dont have local overwhelming fire superiority or pre-planned and prepared defence possition. The shorter the fight the better.

What I do is in early parts of campaing I use founders for offence and manuever warfare and movement for defence. Later on as you get more founders, you also have limited reinforcements in missions. So per slot they do better.

[14285714]

Originally posted by filip.stiga:

Founder units are less specialized and on missions where you have limited units they generaly do better. But lets be honest, if we would play a high attrition style (meaning using alot of infantry for offence) we wouldnt have enough replacements in shops.

Engagments ,for me at least ,always end badly if I dont have local overwhelming fire superiority or pre-planned and prepared defence possition. The shorter the fight the better.

What I do is in early parts of campaing I use founders for offence and manuever warfare and movement for defence. Later on as you get more founders, you also have limited reinforcements in missions. So per slot they do better.

I mainly use my infantry for defensive purpose, they are well protected when hiding inside buildings, so no high casualty. Since each heavy weapon team carry the firepower of an APC, 4 heavy weapon team with plasma recoiless gun can basically vaporize any enemy vehicle that dare come close to their position. With some extra sharpshooters for anti-infantry, their position will be unshakable.

For offensive, sending militia to capture buildings near enemy location is a good start, while they distract the enemy, send in the Bradley and Abrams to wipe them out. If there is no building for cover, you can use Bradley or Stryker to create a smoke screen, then charge, with guerrilla squads to support them. In close combat, guerrilla squad can easily destroy enemy infantry, whether they are hiding behind or inside the building. Their C4 can also be very useful if there are enemy tank nearby, just lure them to approach a C4 and boom, they are gone.

Movement infantry should not be treated as expendable cannon folders, you still need to be careful when moving them around, and make full use of their skill set.

[Littleman]

I don't think comparing the humvee to the van is fair, because they serve different purposes; humvee vs technical would be a better comparison, and in which case I agree the movement option is better, but only slightly. What I feel like you should compare the van to is the stryker since they serve the same purpose, and I strongly believe the stryker to be the superior choice (better protection in my experience and you don't risk your crew getting shot while using the gun). Main tractors are incredibly handy, but again they don't serve the same purpose as the M113; former's job is to pull trailers and platforms, latter is an infantry carrier for off-road areas. Bradley's are universally decent, and a heavy platform/main tractor combo just doesn't compete with an Abrams at all.

Infantry wise, Founders infantry kick militias ass, it is no contest. While militia are cheaper and more numerous than founder infantry, they're not good for much; they lack a LOT of firepower and are really only good in numbers. They can't take on any armor units and have to rely on the RPG or heavy squads to take them out; Founders can take on armor and can (probably should) have a Bradley nearby as backup because they can fit in them. Founders have more health until I think the final xp levels, and their machine gun helps in the anti-infantry position. Militia get their asses kicked in storming buildings be everything, they have the lowest CQC stats in game. You SHOULD NOT try and storm Legion units (their regular leg infantry have the second highest CQC level after revs), and vs everyone else, they only stand a chance against cartel militia.

Point is, founders infantry are generalists: you can throw them into any situation, and they have SOMETHING they can use to survive it. And if they can't, their 7 squad size makes it so that they can have a Bradley supporting them if they run into something like a tank. If a militia unit gets caught in any that isn't other infantry, they need other movement units to survive while they contribute nothing to the fight. I firmly believe that a slot for militia is better used for bringing in an RPG squad instead.

Anything guerrillas can do, Rangers can learn to do as early as level 2. They're both anti-infantry, but Guerrillas have to get close to do their jobs. Rangers are anti-infantry scout units that don't have to get in close to do their jobs, and if they have to, I'm pretty sure their melee stats put them in 3rd place on the rankings after legion units; they can fight anything in a building and it won't be a total wipe for them.

Movement snipers I do think are superior; getting 50% increase in potential firepower is really pig.

Heavy squads are handy, but they're setup time can be troublesome and they can't use what I would argue is the best vehicle mounted weapon for anti-tank work: the ATGM. The best range to engage enemies is where you can shoot them but they can't shoot you, and the ATGM(TOW launcher for bradleys) for vehicles is the longest ranged weapon in game before you hit artillery weapons. In an anti-infantry role, they're incredibly useful. For AT, just use the ATGM or RPG squads; the former because the range advantage, the latter because they don't have a setup problem.

I think the issue for me with movement (except RPG squads, love those guys) is that they still require large numbers to be really effective; numbers that could go to vehicles that I simply think are better suited; heavy trailers have to compete with bradleys and panhards (cartel tanks) for the same deployment slots, and those two are superior for the simple fact that it's 1:1. I don't have to waste another slot to bring in a tractor to move than trailer around. Ironically, I don't have this problem with light platforms but in most missions you can get so many light vehicles it's not a problem.
Every unit competes with something else for deployment space, and on a pound for pound basis, founders units have them beat in my experience. Movement's heavy firepower is reliant on using space for another unit to be mobile; Bradleys and abrams aren't, for instance.

[Littleman]

And as for supplies, it's a non issue: Infantry shouldn't be a major drain on your supplies anyways, and founders units have a perk option that reduces their supply consumption by 20-25%. It's the vehicles you have to worry about, and while movement vehicles are cheaper individually, they typically equal something similar to what it's founder compatriot costs (look at the ammo/fuel suppliers for example) when you start combining them together. And where they don't you're trading less supply consumption for a worse performing combo than the more supply-hungry founders units.

[14285714]

Originally posted by Littleman:

I don't think comparing the humvee to the van is fair, because they serve different purposes; humvee vs technical would be a better comparison, and in which case I agree the movement option is better, but only slightly. What I feel like you should compare the van to is the stryker since they serve the same purpose, and I strongly believe the stryker to be the superior choice (better protection in my experience and you don't risk your crew getting shot while using the gun). Main tractors are incredibly handy, but again they don't serve the same purpose as the M113; former's job is to pull trailers and platforms, latter is an infantry carrier for off-road areas. Bradley's are universally decent, and a heavy platform/main tractor combo just doesn't compete with an Abrams at all.

Infantry wise, Founders infantry kick militias ass, it is no contest. While militia are cheaper and more numerous than founder infantry, they're not good for much; they lack a LOT of firepower and are really only good in numbers. They can't take on any armor units and have to rely on the RPG or heavy squads to take them out; Founders can take on armor and can (probably should) have a Bradley nearby as backup because they can fit in them. Founders have more health until I think the final xp levels, and their machine gun helps in the anti-infantry position. Militia get their asses kicked in storming buildings be everything, they have the lowest CQC stats in game. You SHOULD NOT try and storm Legion units (their regular leg infantry have the second highest CQC level after revs), and vs everyone else, they only stand a chance against cartel militia.

Point is, founders infantry are generalists: you can throw them into any situation, and they have SOMETHING they can use to survive it. And if they can't, their 7 squad size makes it so that they can have a Bradley supporting them if they run into something like a tank. If a militia unit gets caught in any that isn't other infantry, they need other movement units to survive while they contribute nothing to the fight. I firmly believe that a slot for militia is better used for bringing in an RPG squad instead.

Anything guerrillas can do, Rangers can learn to do as early as level 2. They're both anti-infantry, but Guerrillas have to get close to do their jobs. Rangers are anti-infantry scout units that don't have to get in close to do their jobs, and if they have to, I'm pretty sure their melee stats put them in 3rd place on the rankings after legion units; they can fight anything in a building and it won't be a total wipe for them.

Movement snipers I do think are superior; getting 50% increase in potential firepower is really pig.

Heavy squads are handy, but they're setup time can be troublesome and they can't use what I would argue is the best vehicle mounted weapon for anti-tank work: the ATGM. The best range to engage enemies is where you can shoot them but they can't shoot you, and the ATGM(TOW launcher for bradleys) for vehicles is the longest ranged weapon in game before you hit artillery weapons. In an anti-infantry role, they're incredibly useful. For AT, just use the ATGM or RPG squads; the former because the range advantage, the latter because they don't have a setup problem.

I think the issue for me with movement (except RPG squads, love those guys) is that they still require large numbers to be really effective; numbers that could go to vehicles that I simply think are better suited; heavy trailers have to compete with bradleys and panhards (cartel tanks) for the same deployment slots, and those two are superior for the simple fact that it's 1:1. I don't have to waste another slot to bring in a tractor to move than trailer around. Ironically, I don't have this problem with light platforms but in most missions you can get so many light vehicles it's not a problem.
Every unit competes with something else for deployment space, and on a pound for pound basis, founders units have them beat in my experience. Movement's heavy firepower is reliant on using space for another unit to be mobile; Bradleys and abrams aren't, for instance.

Well, humvee and van use the same deployment slot in game, so is M113 and main tractor. It's only natural to compare them. If you use van to replace humvee, you won't need M113 for carrying troops around, and since most battle take place in urban area, M113's advantage of off-road adaptability only really matter in the battle of Vega.

It is easy for people to ♥♥♥♥ on militia, because their basic weapon is terrible, doing little to no damage against any target. However, if you give them NGRW rifle, they can deal decent damage towards infantry. Supporting them with 2 heavy weapon team, you get a stronghold on the map for less upkeep than 1 infantry squad, while freeing your Bradley for offensive operation. The infantry squad, despite having more tools, still heavily rely on the support of other units to hold any position, while requiring nearly twice the upkeep of a militia squad. They are just not good enough to justify their cost.

As for rangers, their rifles hardly has half the dps of a shotgun. They are basically a sniper team with one sniper and some rifle man. In urban combat, guerrilla squads can easily clean up enemy hiding between building, while rangers will lost a member or two even facing a single squad of rev-1. With some luck, guerrilla can even take out a squad of charging rev-6 with 0 casualty. Guerrilla also have body armor upgrade and sprinter upgrade, further increasing their survivalbility in the field. As for CQC, guerrilla has the same capability as rangers, but they will shoot their enemy with shotgun before entering melee.

I don't really consider ATGM to be that good though, it has long range, sure, but it also has low accuracy (~30-40% chance miss the target), slow projectile and little ammo reserve. If you don't micro manage them you will find them being wasted on some spiders, and your ammo truck empty half way through the mission. Plasma recoiless gun, on the other hand, don't have such problems. It has high accuracy, low ammo cost, and deadly against all kind of vehicles. Even legion tank cannot survive two plasma recoiless gun shooting at it. When put inside a tough building, two heavy squad with such weapon can easily repel waves of legion attack, without needing bradley or abrams to support them. They only need a few second for set up and can be quicker with upgrade. RPG is pretty useless though, as they only have 90 range at best, and most vehicle weapons have 120 range, sending them for defense is simply waste of man power.

The movement really shine at its infantry, 1 militia squad, 2 sharp shooter squad, and 1 heavy squad with plasma spg can fit inside two van and turn any building on the map into a stronghold that can stand against light vehicle and infantry attack without any aid. That's something founder infantry can't achieve despite needing more upkeep. In late game, establishing such strongholds across the map is vital to maintain a safe zone as enemy will come from many different directions. It also allow you to use all your abrams and bradleys for offensive, as the movement infantries do not need their support.

[Littleman]

I'm gonna call cap on the ATGM missing that often, that thing is laser accurate for me, and chalk it up to personal experience causing our differing opinions on it. The only time that thing misses for me is when it hits a smoke screen, and EVERYTHING goes to ♥♥♥♥ accuracy with those things.

Anyway, I get why you'd say the RPG squad isn't very good (personal bias of mine aside), but at the same time I feel like they might not be getting used properly. They make a great 1-2 punch for ambushes which I think is what they're built for, and rocketman lets them take on entrenched infantry better than militia. In purely defensive positions, they're range thing can be a problem, but in my experience the ai rarely, if ever, properly uses their range advantage of their vehicles. Combined with the fact that a lot of missions love making tight spaces to work with, it's surprisingly common for enemy vehicles to just turn around a corner and get nailed by the RPG teams. 2 RPG squads are better than 1 militia squad in my opinion, and I find they pair significantly better with heavy squads when used as cover teams.

The reason why I think RPG teams are better for AT work than heavys is admittedly personal bias on my end; Because of how the ai works when in buildings, they keep moving around to get a shot off on enemies, and I distinctly remember my heavys constantly having to set up their weapons after moving, and never actually take a shot. When they don't do that, they're amazing, but that experience has taught me it's better to not deploy them in buildings at all just so they actually shoot their damn guns. Granted, I had the same experience with ATGM squads, but their range advantage taught me that you should deploy them behind your main defense position, probably in a different building if necessary so they can make use of it. You don't put ATGMs on the frontline, you set them up in the rear and use other infantry like rangers or guerrillas to spot targets for them.