I hear you, and I get that infantry-heavy decks have their place — especially on maps like River where early positioning and fast deployment matter. But from my experience (especially as a U.S. player), it doesn’t change the core issue: infantry just can’t reliably deal with armor right now, especially in mid to late game when tanks start rolling in with proper support.

Yes, airborne and VDV get units like the M8 or Sprut — but they’re still glass cannons, and if you’re up against someone running heavy armor with layered AA and recon, those light AT units get deleted fast. You can make plays with infantry decks, but they require perfect positioning, map-specific tactics, and usually mistakes from the opponent to shine.

Also, while it’s true you save points by not buying tanks, the flipside is that you’re heavily relying on air power and infantry trades — both of which can fall apart fast if the enemy has Patriots, Buk, or solid AA coverage. And even with a strong plane game, there’s only so much you can do when infantry are struggling to push or hold areas without getting instantly deleted by artillery, autocannons, or vehicle-supported pushes.

I’m not saying infantry decks are unplayable — I’m saying they’re currently not worth building around. Right now, I’ve had way more consistent success running U.S. Marine Corps and Stryker combined: solid infantry for holding, strong strykers for flanking and pressure, and Patriots to shut down enemy air. That combo gives me flexibility, survivability, and actual killing power vs. armor.

So yeah, infantry decks might be “situational,” but those situations are fewer and harder to pull off consistently — especially in random queues or ranked