I disagree. A talented engineer can act as a multiplier. Whereas most assaulters, flametroopers, riflemen, etc
no matter how talented, act as additives.
Think of it in terms of effectiveness, represented simply with numbers:
Each of your other infantry groups, with the exception of mortars, snipers, and RO squads, which are supports, which I would also say have the POTENTIAL to act as multipliers (though they aren’t the topic here), are represented as 1’s, maybe 2’s if they are well equipped and used well.
While having a 10 player team (rounded just to keep the numbers simple), if all of them ran the fighter groups to the point, that would equal an effective score of somewhere between 10- 20, though likely your range is more often going to be 10-15.
If you instead add some supports in there, that act as multipliers, and their talent measured between 1.0-2.0, then you can buff up your teams effectiveness from 9-18 to say a 9.0-36.
If I’ve lost you by this point (which I can understand I may have), let me explain in simpler terms:
Fighter type troops have there place. I’m not saying they don’t. However, a good engineer has the difference to make that group of fighters SIGNIFICANTLY better, at the cost of one set of troops at the front lines.
Setting up some support for your fighter players ahead of time essentially just makes each of them perform better while in that area (IF they are willing to work with it). So instead of fighting hard and only draining 100-300 tickets, a well-supported team can more likely drain 300-600 tickets with that same level of effort.
However, given how many things break through fortifications currently, that reduces engineers worth. Not so much that it makes them worthless, but instead, they aren’t worth as much as they should be, especially when they are tactically talented.
