>>2116403
They are similar, but to call them equivalent is not apt. SMAW teams are vastly inferior to MAAWS teams. They have less AT ammo, shoot WAY slower due to their higher reload time AND less launchers, but the real killer is their lack of range. The 600 meter range combined with the higher firerate on MAAWS means you genuinely can ambush and kill tanks with MAAWS, while against SMAW teams the tanks will simply back up out of range before they die unless they get engine stalled. Them being multi-role is nice, but their eight-person squad size actually vastly constrains their usage because the only APC capable of carrying two of them is the AAVP which is pretty dogshit compared to the AMPV.
>>2116381
>Combat engineers are are really good CQC squad for their price
No? They are okay close range support squads, but they are vastly overpriced because of their hybrid role much like everything else in the cavalry regiment. 60 point pararescue, 70 point ingenirsky, even 75 point Rangers RRC can beat Combat Engineers in CQC because the engineers rely far too much on their SMAW and their grenade launcher to deal damage. Their role is to deal damage up-close, but they get assraped by actual anti-infantry units in CQC. Anyone with half a brain will simply rush their nearest anti-infantry unit into CQC, popping smoke as needed to avoid short-ranged incoming fire. For reference, the Rangers RRC have two machineguns with more damage than the Combat Engineer shotgun, and machineguns get 2x the effective RoF of standard small arms, meaning they have more than twice the CQC damage in this one slot alone. This isn't even a dedicated anti-infantry squad, this is just a good CQC unit compared to a bad CQC unit.
(continued)