What would you say is the best ground unit? And why?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • There are few units that "do not have a role" that can fit a context, and every unit can be countered in some fashing, it's the beauty of the game.

      In that regard, it's a bit unfair to try to give the strongest ground unit, due to how much factors need to be taken into account.

      However, in a theoretical world where only ground forces are involved, and if you are correctly active, MRLs are overwhelming.

      overwhelming in the meaning that "if you have them and the other doesn't, nor any artillery", to destroy 100 units per every single you lose already seems like "you played like a noob, losing that one unit"


      Globally speaking, compositions that are aimed around the so called "meta triangle" :

      - ASFs protect from helicopters
      - SAM protect from planes and missiles
      - MRL kill everything on ground

      (and "helicopters try to kill SAM and MRL" as the combo breaker)

      are curently considered to be in the waters of the best efficiency you can get "when playing against active players".

      Against casuals, you easily get 20 K/D, but a bit of warning : it does make the game boring in public games.

      Now, K/D is useless, but some people do like to do 15-20 K/D in public games and then have a normal K/D in challenges against good players. Ultimately it gets them to a nice and shiny 10 K/D.

      Still doesn't impress the ladies but hey, internet points.


      I don't know if it's what you expected when asking "what is the strongest ground unit".
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • If you can only choose one you would have to choose an infantry because you need to be able to capture ground. Since you cannot choose any artillery, you should probably choose lvl6+ mot inf and you can still protect yourself against air wit ASF(kinda). But this is not a good strat, which underlines that you need multiple unit types to be successful.
    • Jemandanderes wrote:

      If you can only choose one you would have to choose an infantry because you need to be able to capture ground. Since you cannot choose any artillery, you should probably choose lvl6+ mot inf and you can still protect yourself against air wit ASF(kinda). But this is not a good strat, which underlines that you need multiple unit types to be successful.
      Yes, ultimately, if we are playing such a game where your own tech tree gets 100% blocked once you searched an unit, infantry seems pretty obvious.

      This said, i'm pretty sure some madmen would still chose mobile artillery, because "i have 10 starting infantries, i can win with that".
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      Jemandanderes wrote:

      If you can only choose one you would have to choose an infantry because you need to be able to capture ground. Since you cannot choose any artillery, you should probably choose lvl6+ mot inf and you can still protect yourself against air wit ASF(kinda). But this is not a good strat, which underlines that you need multiple unit types to be successful.
      Yes, ultimately, if we are playing such a game where your own tech tree gets 100% blocked once you searched an unit, infantry seems pretty obvious.
      This said, i'm pretty sure some madmen would still chose mobile artillery, because "i have 10 starting infantries, i can win with that".
      Haven't played with mobile artillery because it just never caught my eye as something useful. Why is it considered bad? Is it just because there are better alternatives (for example, towed artillery)?
    • StopThereCowboy wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      Jemandanderes wrote:

      If you can only choose one you would have to choose an infantry because you need to be able to capture ground. Since you cannot choose any artillery, you should probably choose lvl6+ mot inf and you can still protect yourself against air wit ASF(kinda). But this is not a good strat, which underlines that you need multiple unit types to be successful.
      Yes, ultimately, if we are playing such a game where your own tech tree gets 100% blocked once you searched an unit, infantry seems pretty obvious.This said, i'm pretty sure some madmen would still chose mobile artillery, because "i have 10 starting infantries, i can win with that".
      Haven't played with mobile artillery because it just never caught my eye as something useful. Why is it considered bad? Is it just because there are better alternatives (for example, towed artillery)?
      its not bad it just doesnt not as stronk as MRL is but in return is a bit less expensive and costs "only" supply/components instead of supply/elec
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      StopThereCowboy wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      Jemandanderes wrote:

      If you can only choose one you would have to choose an infantry because you need to be able to capture ground. Since you cannot choose any artillery, you should probably choose lvl6+ mot inf and you can still protect yourself against air wit ASF(kinda). But this is not a good strat, which underlines that you need multiple unit types to be successful.
      Yes, ultimately, if we are playing such a game where your own tech tree gets 100% blocked once you searched an unit, infantry seems pretty obvious.This said, i'm pretty sure some madmen would still chose mobile artillery, because "i have 10 starting infantries, i can win with that".
      Haven't played with mobile artillery because it just never caught my eye as something useful. Why is it considered bad? Is it just because there are better alternatives (for example, towed artillery)?
      its not bad it just doesnt not as stronk as MRL is but in return is a bit less expensive and costs "only" supply/components instead of supply/elec
      Gotcha. I've wondered how useful something is for its cost. For example, weaker artillery that's cheaper vs more expensive artillery that's stronger. So in that case, would it be smart to possibly research cheaper artillery at the start of the game (per se mobile artillery) and in the later game (day 10-15) research more expensive tech? Or is it better to just go all out on day 7 if you can, even if you don't get a larger army size in the end?
    • I probably expressed myself badly if i said that mobile artillery was bad.

      It is good. Not as good as MRL for its role, but it's one of the best "bang for the buck" unit that exist.

      I mean, it's the only artillery that can act as a light tank, and still have the same "economical ground" than infantry
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • StopThereCowboy wrote:

      I've wondered how useful something is for its cost. For example, weaker artillery that's cheaper vs more expensive artillery that's stronger. So in that case, would it be smart to possibly research cheaper artillery at the start of the game (per se mobile artillery) and in the later game (day 10-15) research more expensive tech? Or is it better to just go all out on day 7 if you can, even if you don't get a larger army size in the end?
      I've struggled with the same puzzle. The issue i got stuck with is that in theory the principle works, practically if you shift in later game (and research more expensive tech) you a) lose functionality of the 'cheaper unit', b) you waste lots of research time / resources.

      I'll take a simple example: start cheap(er) TA in early game, evolve to MRL later.
      Well, TA really comes useful when it can air assault, which is day 15 and after 5 research steps. So, i think it'll be unwise to stop research before that.

      But then, is it wise at that point to switch to MRL, which you should have started researching from earlier on, and have them fly on day 17?

      dunno. i haven't really found an answer to the 'start cheap, evolve later' within the same unit category (artillery, artillery) so far. I think my answer is 'no'. You evolve with different unit groups (like, TA early, then RGs, or ships, or... later)
    • crazystoner wrote:

      Special Forces.

      Nothing and i mean nothing will stand up to a 200 atk SF stack.
      I mean, lvl1 MBT stack would still crush that. (not that I use them, and I know we are talking mainly about arty; you just said "nothing and i mean nothing..")
      Also, what spec ops has a 200 attack rating? Do you have 15 maxed out spec ops stacked together? lol

      Now, you are correct in saying that special forces are a great counter to arty. I try to get my mobile radar maxed out to detect such things, and they are always paired with MRLs ;)
      but, that's just my 2 cents' worth
    • Sgniappo wrote:

      StopThereCowboy wrote:

      I've wondered how useful something is for its cost. For example, weaker artillery that's cheaper vs more expensive artillery that's stronger. So in that case, would it be smart to possibly research cheaper artillery at the start of the game (per se mobile artillery) and in the later game (day 10-15) research more expensive tech? Or is it better to just go all out on day 7 if you can, even if you don't get a larger army size in the end?
      I've struggled with the same puzzle. The issue i got stuck with is that in theory the principle works, practically if you shift in later game (and research more expensive tech) you a) lose functionality of the 'cheaper unit', b) you waste lots of research time / resources.
      I'll take a simple example: start cheap(er) TA in early game, evolve to MRL later.
      Well, TA really comes useful when it can air assault, which is day 15 and after 5 research steps. So, i think it'll be unwise to stop research before that.

      But then, is it wise at that point to switch to MRL, which you should have started researching from earlier on, and have them fly on day 17?

      dunno. i haven't really found an answer to the 'start cheap, evolve later' within the same unit category (artillery, artillery) so far. I think my answer is 'no'. You evolve with different unit groups (like, TA early, then RGs, or ships, or... later)
      Back on topic;

      I agree that it can really be situational. If I feel like there may be an immediate threat than I will put out some TA to back up my inf. Then later in the game once my MRL or MA production is up, I'll use those now outdated TA has homeland defense units.
      but, that's just my 2 cents' worth
    • MicahWill wrote:

      Also, what spec ops has a 200 attack rating? Do you have 15 maxed out spec ops stacked together? lol
      Ones with a maxed out special force commander :) giving them huge offensive and defensive bonuses.

      I mean if you want to be even crazyer, you can stack 4 SAS with 4 Naval and both Infantry commander and SF commander.
      But then you loss the whole "stealth" and need some AA support. But you'll have massive speed, offensive numbers and a small radar.

      That been said, you can push numbers up to 15-20 and still have decent movement speed, use mechanized infantry instead of naval.
      Only really nuclear cruise missiles that can stop you at that stage, sure you can kite and use artillery but the damage is minimal with all the supporting AA units. I mean even a infantry unit with 9 Mortor infantry are lethal, with that mortor range, high speed and 50-70ish damage?

      Better yet you don't show up on AWAC radar.
      Tho id like to get SC access and try some seasonal unit combinations, those eastern? elite tanks are lethal with their antiair def.
      Love to see what kind of damage a tank commanded unit can produce with commander, elite tanks, tanks, railguns. Hopefully since i have got the points in each season to unlock them all, i just need to purchase SC to access them all. But your hitpoints, damage and stack could be unparalleled!

      The post was edited 8 times, last by crazystoner ().

    • I think that's an interesting question. But I think the only accurate answer is not an answer at all.
      Let me explain my rational:

      Modern warfare relies on combined arms tactics and CON is true to this as well. This means that no individual unit type is greater than the sum of the entire battle groups parts. One unit type will always rely on another for its completion of the objective.

      Example:
      Artillery is only effective when supported by combined Inf. and armor to provide blocking groups and A.A. to create a safe envelope of airspace protecting said ground units.

      That being said, Spec ops are very effective in limited rolls. But for my money Combined battle groups where all units have air-assault capability are very hard deal with for any defender.
      Those who would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither.


      I am not a maker of hats but a harbinger of doom