Thoughts on Infantry

[Darthscharnhorst2]

Having played the ground battle to death in the demo, I find myself wondering if the infantry units in the game could have been given more functionality by combining them instead of breaking them down into anti-armor and anti-personal roles.  While I know many RTS games follow the convention that the two need to be separate in order to accomplish the paper beats rock strategic element, it forces the player to further micromanage his forces while at the same time has no base in reality.  Given the devs aim of less micromanagement and focus on fun I think it might have further their aim by "revolutionizing" this gameplay aspect. 

 

I can think of a few possible alternatives:

 

1. Infantry units have a the missile weapons as a secondary fire option.

 

2. Infantry units fire off missiles as well as their blasters concurrently.  Perhaps 1/4 infantry men carries a rocket launcher or they simply fire them at a much lower rate of fire. 

 

3. Infantry units normally fire blasters but when set to "take cover" they automatically shift to rockets when targeting armored units.  Rocket fire is halved *one man fires, one man loads* in order to achieve a sense of unit balance. 

 

Please post your own ideas, or feel free to bash mine ;D 

It would be fun to see why people voted the way the did.

[Faceh]

I said no due to the fact that it means you have to think a lot more on what units to send in to battle rather than droping down 1 unit that does it all.  You need a balance of the two imo, good idea but personally I dont feel it would fit in EAW.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

I said no due to the fact that it means you have to think a lot more on what units to send in to battle rather than dropping down 1 unit that does it all.  You need a balance of the two imo, good idea but personally I dont feel it would fit in EAW.

 

Good point.  In most RTS games I usually group 1 anti-tank inf unit with 2 anti-personal ones in order to cover all bases.  However my question is what is the point of having 2 units when in order for them to be effective they need to work together anyway.  Since the two inf units seem to be at a big disadvantage in EAW *squashable by tanks, etc* I cannot see myself or any wise player operating them independently of each other.  Of course I could be wrong and mass building anti-armor while ignoring the regular ones could be a viable strategy, especially with the powerful armored units roaming around. 

 

I see a lot of votes for keeping the current system but only one response as to why  :-\

[raydude]

Having played the ground battle to death in the demo, I find myself wondering if the infantry units in the game could have been given more functionality by combining them instead of breaking them down into anti-armor and anti-personal roles.  While I know many RTS games follow the convention that the two need to be separate in order to accomplish the paper beats rock strategic element, it forces the player to further micromanage his forces while at the same time has no base in reality.  Given the devs aim of less micromanagement and focus on fun I think it might have further their aim by "revolutionizing" this gameplay aspect. 

 

I can think of a few possible alternatives:

 

1. Infantry units have a the missile weapons as a secondary fire option.

2. Infantry units fire off missiles as well as their blasters concurrently.  Perhaps 1/4 infantry men carries a rocket launcher or they simply fire them at a much lower rate of fire. 

3. Infantry units normally fire blasters but when set to "take cover" they automatically shift to rockets when targeting armored units.  Rocket fire is halved *one man fires, one man loads* in order to achieve a sense of unit balance. 

 

 

I wonder why you say using 2 separate groups of infantry has no basis in reality? Not every soldier in the US army is issued a LAW (light antitank weapon) even if enemy armor is expected. Typically specially designated anti-tank teams, using the Dragon or Javelin weapons system, are attached to an infantry task force on an as needed basis. Some task forces in the 2nd Iraq war, for example, didn't have any anti-tank teams attached at all.

 

I see some problems with your suggestions:

 

1. This just shifts the micromanagement burden somewhere else. Instead of managing two unit types, the player is held accountable for choosing the unit then waiting until "secondary fire" against armored units is needed. Say for example that I leave an infantry unit at one site on the map and micromanage a battle somewhere else. If that unit gets attacked by tanks then it will simply die because I was not there to hit the secondary fire button.

 

2. The problem of dividing the RTS infantry unit into X blasters and Y anti-tank shooters is that there is no way to safeguard the Y anti-tank shooters until they are needed. For example, suppose a combined intfantry/anti-tank unit lands on the Tatooine map. The Empire player can simply send the cheap and expendable stormtroopers until all Y anti-tank figures are eliminated from the unit. Then he can send in his tanks.

 

3. What happens when there is an odd number of figures in the unit? (as when a figure dies from casualties) Does the odd unit switch to just firing blasters? Then does he go back to being the "loader" when the number of figures is even again? This means additional CPU cycles and lines of code to cover all cases.

 

Your ideas are good, but I think they may be better used in a game with larger scale - like an RTS that models division sized units rather than company sized - or in games that don't rely so much on "rock,papers,scissors" combat resolution.

[Guest]

anti-personnel? It thought infantry were already made to fight against other troopers so they are already anti-personnel

[shadowsfm]

at least the rebs have anti-infintry, anti-armor, and snipers, imps only have stormtroopers

[Grand Admiral Thrawn 889]

i agree with the infantry units being in the game they give stability and aregood for stealth and can be used to take out Turbolaser turrets easily.

[SirNuke]

I believe the Imps will have shock troopers in the final game.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

I wonder why you say using 2 separate groups of infantry has no basis in reality? Not every soldier in the US army is issued a LAW (light antitank weapon) even if enemy armor is expected. Typically specially designated anti-tank teams, using the Dragon or Javelin weapons system, are attached to an infantry task force on an as needed basis. Some task forces in the 2nd Iraq war, for example, didn't have any anti-tank teams attached at all.

 

 

Thats my point though, the anti-tank units are attached to the normal ones instead of running around the battlefield alone.  But like you also pointed out, the games does not represent divisions but rather squads. 

[Teradyn_pff]

The thing is, once you build the unit and deploy it, there are 2 separate groups for Imps or 3 separate groups for Rebels.  Using the Rebels for example... have each squad built come with 2 infantry groups of 5 and one plex group of 5, instead of the normal 3 groups of 5 infantry.

 

This I believe is going to be very doable via modding.  I also think that a similar configuration would work with starfighters.  Bump up the group to 12 and have it be 8 fighters and 4 bombers.  The only problem with this I see is bombing runs.  It would be cool if it didn't crash the game and you saw 12 units fly by and only the Y-wings or the Tie bombers dropped the bombs and you got to see their escorts fly by.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

The thing is, once you build the unit and deploy it, there are 2 separate groups for Imps or 3 separate groups for Rebels.  Using the Rebels for example... have each squad built come with 2 infantry groups of 5 and one plex group of 5, instead of the normal 3 groups of 5 infantry.

 

This I believe is going to be very doable via modding.  I also think that a similar configuration would work with starfighters.  Bump up the group to 12 and have it be 8 fighters and 4 bombers.  The only problem with this I see is bombing runs.  It would be cool if it didn't crash the game and you saw 12 units fly by and only the Y-wings or the Tie bombers dropped the bombs and you got to see their escorts fly by.

 

Yes, this is what I was going for.  It allows the player to concentrate more on the strategy of planning attacks and less fast clicking. 

 

In any case it seems that more people who took the poll are in favor of some form of change than what we currently see in an RTS. 

[Muppster]

You would obviously have to be careful that combining two different types of units together doesn't mess up the unit AI leading to more mouse clicking to overcome the AI.

 

-=M=-

[MastaSpoofa]

I think that its a bad idea to mix the units, enless you did it like dawn of war did with the squads.

[Teradyn_pff]

That is exactly what we are proposing.

[TaCk]

My take on all this is that Infantry should have more options available. You have a basic infantry unit that can switch between Anti-Personnel and Anti-Vehicle weapons. There should also be different stances for different purposes, and of course the "evasive" stance.

[Mcas1937]

I agree. Infantry should be more Dawn of War squad like where certian men in the platoon have a certian job to do, be it anti-tank, anti-infantry, or fire support.

[Zer_Teron]

I love the companies concept, ive made one you could buy that once deployed on the planet gave you an AT-AT 2 AT-STs, 3 Repulsor Tanks, 1 AT-AA, and a couple Sotrmtroopers units.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

I love the companies concept, ive made one you could buy that once deployed on the planet gave you an AT-AT 2 AT-STs, 3 Repulsor Tanks, 1 AT-AA, and a couple Sotrmtroopers units.

 

This sounds pretty cool indeed.