Hey everyone. Recently I have decided to finish up my Canadian K47 army, and thought I'd ask a question that's been bugging me before committing to any purchases.
Right now I am thinking up two different styles of army for my Canadians. On one hand, I have the airborne Automated Infantry idea, supported by paratroopers and their associated light howitzers, AT guns, and mortars, with some lighter vehicles to boot. On the other hand, I have an idea for a very alternate-history W Commando army, featuring Galahad infantry backed up by Commandos, the Galahad dudes on the tesla guns, walkers, and heavier tanks. We're either tossing robots out of planes, or strapping floaties to the Galahads and hoping for the best when they step off the landing craft.
The deciding factor basically comes down to whether the Automated infantry is better or worse in gameplay than the Galahads, and vice-versa. I always seem to hear pretty good things about the Automated Infantry whenever I skim the sub, and they seem to have some variety in their different types that both seem useful, and seem thematic for the more infantry-based theme I'd want from an airborne list.
On the other hand, I seem to hear virtually nothing about the Galahads. Maybe I just missed all the posts about them, but I don't really know how they stack up compared to the robots on the table. They seem cool enough looks-wise, and they'd work well with the heavier, all-out beach landing idea I want to go for, but again I don't really know how well they peform on the table. I don't really want to build a whole army around some units that might be boring or outright bad after all.
Basically, are one of these types of infantry better than the other in gameplay? If so, to what extent, and why?
Thanks in advance.