Infantry is the most powerful class in PS2. It can be deployed directly to the frontline without expending a substantial amount of resources. If intelligently deployed, infantry can hold a building or terrain object against substantially larger forces, or even use terrain to completely decimate enemy spawn points and vehicle columns. Infantry has a multitude of means to destroy and deter enemy aircraft and armor, even capabilities to instantly destroy vehicles and emplacements without a significant resource investment to do so. Infantry, because it is expendable and can mass, is often the strongest force for securing terrain and inarguably the strongest force for capturing points. Infantry can quickly adapt to face any situation and are ultimately the most mobile and most sustainable source of firepower, due to its ability to spawn at deployed sunderers and bases. Despite the above, infantry is strong only because it typically has easy access to support. A lone light assault may be able to break off from the main forces and get a handful of kills in the backline, but this is generally a highly inefficient use of time. Even if that light assault got five kills, unless he is destroying a vehicle, causing a distraction that wastes enemy time, or causes a significant amount of wasted time through respawn and foot redeploy, his actions can be entirely negated by a medic or a more forward respawn point. A stalker can capture a point behind enemy lines, but unless it causes a significant number of enemies to give up their advantageous positions or distracts people who respawn, his actions would be better spent doing almost anything else. Though there are players and playstyles who do well solo, the ultimate loss of time from dying and having to redeploy causes mass drops in efficiency that could easily be negated through working with other infantry classes and vehicles. Whereas vehicles have the durability, mobility, and firepower to operate efficiently alone, the solo infantryman that is not working directly supporting or acting with the support of his team ultimately achieves very little, if anything at all. Additionally, infantry, because of its low mobility, is the easiest class with which to waste time. Every second is valuable. If it takes 60 seconds for ten people to move to active combat, that is 60 seconds that their allies receive support neither in the form of firepower or enemy fire dispersion, 600 seconds of force lost overall. Raw strength is a matter of being able to deal damage without taking damage or being deterred/suppressed, and for infantry achieves this only by gaining mass. Small waves of dispersed soldiers are easy to kill, whereas massed groups with medics and engineer support can take on larger numbers for a longer amount of time. Thus, every soldier that needs to redeploy and relocate to the battlefield on foot is both vulnerable to enemy fire and allows the enemy to gain further advantage on the defensive position. Furthermore, due to low mobility, infantry can easily be outflanked without cover from vehicles or other spawns, which means even good offensive placement can be completely negated by failing to properly disperse the enemy's attention over multiple spawns. As such, it is important never to consider infantry as a unit unto itself, unless that unit is willing to be flexible with switching to vehicle roles when necessary. Infantry, by it's nature, requires support for efficient use. Properly supported infantry is infinitely versatile, but can be narrowed down into two general categories: hardpoint hold and melee assault. As a rule, these require vehicle support for efficient use. Except for the defense of biolabs and heavily infantry-weighted bases like Nanite Subterranean, a base that cannot be supported by vehicles because of enemy force projection is one that cannot be defended from the ground by infantry. Unless the cap point is designed to defend infantry against vehicle suppression, a force of infantry cannot hold off against a larger force that has vehicle support without significantly higher skill and coordination against a less coordinated foe. As such, unless you can spawn in a greater amount of force than the enemy is able to sustain at the point, it is not worth defending bases without friendly vehicles support at all. With vehicle support as a condition for efficiency in action, we can further break down the amount of viable infantry units (excluding support based units, such as repair squads and elite outfits) into two general categories of efficient use: aerial/light vehicle deployed infantry and AMS based terrain hold/assault. If the situation on the field does not allow for one of these to be used effectively, your infantry unit is better off playing vehicles, or choosing a different engagement. Aerially deployed infantry can be used defensively or offensively; infantry uses air to negate its mobility disadvantage to project force directly to clear a weak point, or to take advantage of terrain without high time losses or risking exposure. This can be done and sustained at relatively low expense, but can be countered without mass or ground support. AMS infantry uses infantry to make use of hard cover vehicles cannot exploit to gain wider and closer territory control around a base, until the marginal gains in ground control allows enough force projection to cover the capture point. This typically requires a much higher troop count, as a wide front must be sustained to prevent being outmaneuvered. Without multiple AMS's and proper defense or renewal of those sunderers, AMS infantry is easy to waste time with. Light vehicle based infantry use low-resource vehicles to reduce travel time and exposure, allowing a decent amount of force projection beforce dismount and foot assault. This unit thrives in difficult but not impassable terrain, where it is able to keep some mobility without risking a lot of exposure. Aside from these particular uses, an organized unit should shy away from using infantry. If the situation does not allow for any of these tactics, you're better off elsewhere, or using vehicles. The mobility of air and light vehicles allow infantry to quickly deploy to undefended hardpoints, or to bypass open or enemy contested terrain to mount a direct assault. Infantry, in general, is effective only at close range, especially against other infantry positions, or vehicles in hard cover. Aerial or light vehicle insertion allows for the negation of the terrain or distance from spawn advantage of the enemy, allowing you to clear distracted forces, or distract well entrenched forces long enough to give armor and sunderers room to take territory. The playstyle is weak in open terrain and can be deterred by AA (for aerial insertion), by lock ons, or if the enemy has air superiority. Furthermore, if the assault is not exploited by the main branch of the offensive to secure more territory, the effort is wasted entirely. AMS infantry is the most common infantry type seen, but typically is given insufficient support. AMS infantry negates the mobility disadvantage of infantry by providing a hardened spawn point that allows direct access to combat. This is only true if the AMS is placed near enough to the frontline that there is no significant travel time between spawn and engaging the enemy. Deployed sunderers can easily be outflanked by vehicles, demo teams, and enemy spawn positions if multiple sunderers are not used to cover wide swaths of ground. In open terrain, sunderer AMS cannot be used effectively without construction or armor support, as large open fields are difficult to cross for both sunderers and infantry. AMS deployment forms the lance of any offensive, but due to the relative vulnerability of a single sunderer, requires the most support to use effectively. Without access to support, AMS infantry is a blunt force at best. While infantry can also be used without support to defend bases, this is ultimately inefficient in the long run. If you manage to clear off the attackers, you must either redeploy elsewhere or use vehicle support to gain ground. Solo and zerg infantry can be a fun playstyle if you are good, don't mind downtime or wasted time, or have low standards for gameplay, but having no definite support puts you at the mercy of the game and more organized units. While there is some purpose to the zerg, they hamper both their own fun and their team's effectiveness by neither providing nor acting where they have useful support. As a squad or platoon leader, regardless of the organization and experience of your men, if you fail to take advantage of your support options, you guarantee inefficient output of your team.
I'm sorry man but your post is a parody of a forum post and you also descent into the depths of parody for this particular forum. If that was your intention, well done, it's genius, but I suspect not. I cannot imagine a more convoluted way to state the obvious that in order to take a base you need vehicle support along with infantry. It is rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric.
I suppose. Either way, it is frequently misused. Leads in my faction generally don't seem to actually understand what infantry does, so they end up throwing waves and waves of people pointlessly forward without realizing why they keep getting pushed back and flanked. They choose the hard way because they don't understand that there are easier, more effective ways to use their forces. Either way, it's less to say that vehicle support is needed, more a guide on when and how to use infantry effectively.
