infantry proposal fix v2.0

[rezaf]

Deploy zones must be a certain size, they cannot just be infinitely huge.

As I wrote elsewhere, deployment zone size should stay as it is - this would add a disincentive to take too many infantry units along, but still allow players to do so - but it'd take two turns or even more to bring all the units to the field.

Gameplay significantly slows down as the pool of player units expands past 30 CORE units.

Agreed. I'd never dream of taking this much INF, but there are people with much greater tolerance for long turn times. Think about the guys playing the giant PzC scenarios taking part on a world map...

Units lose their individual uniqueness when you have too many of them

Haha, that was a good one Kerensky.
Or are we talking about a different game now? One where every unit has a fair chance to acquire lots of experience? One with heroes that lead the unit and give it specific advantages? One where you can name your units?
Cause none of these things are in Armageddon.

Maps have size limits that must be observed. It would take map size past 50x50 to fit such an overabundance of units, and there are many technical reasons this is not feasible to do.

Like I wrote above, players were using gargantuan maps in PzC without issues. Except the long turn times and stuff, sure - one of the main reasons I was never interested in the large scenarios, but they were possible.
That said, like I also wrote above, the size of the official scenarios should not change, imo. Besides, let's not fool ourselves into thinking something like that was even in the cards.

Memory issues on non-PC devices becomes a serious concern.

Wait, besides the horrible touch UI, you mean to tell us we PC players playing a PC game on the PC are getting the short end of the stick because some other folks might be playing the game on a tablet and you design the content of your PC game PC players play on their PCs with that in mind. Amagawd.

Panzer Corps behaved very similar. Infantry struggled in the campaign because the campaign values long lasting units who can retain high experience scenario after scenario after scenario.

Err ... no? Inf was a very important part of every player core in PzC, right up to the end. Playing with only tanks was a recipe for disaster ...

Also, what good what it do to inflate scenario deployment limits if player's aren't even using all of their deployment slots to begin with?

I usually used them all up until I realized an all-titan army was the way to go, at which point I lapsed for a time. In the final scenarios, I used up everything again and filled my ranks with some more space marine infantry to seize objectives and defend them if need be. Frequently lost 'em buggers, cause INF sucks in Armageddon.

Giving higher body count to infantry without upping their damage ridiculously would make infantry have a niche purpose : damage sponge

I'm just quoting this line representative for the ongoing INF discussion. Like I wrote above, I feel INF were a worthwile unit in PzC, and the problem with them in Armageddon boils down to removing the game concepts that made them desireable in PzC (close combat, digging in) and implementing game systems that were not very well thought out. Parts of Armageddon feel like no playtesting whatsoever took place, and from remarks of people that played the beta, I'd cobble together a rather unpleasant picture where stuff was frequently changed and finally just shipped in a knowingly half-arsed state. I have no good solution for the INF issues at this point, as making them considerably more powerful might very well upset the content of existing scenarios to a considerable degree - it'd also affect the orks, after all.

I'm sure we (or let's say you guys, don't wanna steel anyones thunder) could come up with a good system on paper, but I have a hard time believing something very different will be implemented after appearently no sh*t was given about this during the entire span of the games development cycle. So all that can remain is most likely minor tweaks...
_____
rezaf

[Kerensky]

Infantry are already great damage sponges for their prices. I don't see the problem...

To each their own. Sounds like two different, but both totally viable, play styles to me. Some prefer to spend all your money up front for maximum 'all in'. I prefer to cheapen some of my units so that I have more mid-mission flexibility and adaptability. Some low end infantry has moved up quite a bit in the recent patch, but that's as far as they can go without starting to raise in price. They undoubtably serve their purpose and they do it very well and very cheaply. To anyone who doesn't like them, they can choose a different playstyle and still enjoy success with our game.

To repeat what someone else has said on this topic:

We have infantry cheap to make them more cost effective. I don’t think we can make them more powerful so yes you may lose them but you just buy more. That’s very WH40k!

[Kerensky]

Let me see if I understand this right. You guys are advocating for better infantry. It sounds like you want them on the same level as tanks and heavy vehicles, just serving a different role. Do you really think basic Steel Legion soldiers with only lasguns will ever be made strong enough to warrant a 500 or 700 price tag? Do I really need to explain how that's not a good idea?

Infantry exist on the same spectrum as other unit classes as dictated by their 40k based stats. Some are weak and cheap (basic infantry, chimera chassis vehicles) and some are really strong (Terminators, Baneblades). If you don't like or don't know how to use cheap infantry, the game offers plenty of other alternatives to wage a successful campaign. Freedom of choice is a big deal, and that also means its freedom of choice to sometimes make the wrong decisions.

I hear a lot of theorycrafting, but I don't really see concrete examples of actual gameplay. I always take ample infantry in my playthroughs, and they perform as expected. They are cheap, effective in limited roles (Space Marine units with assault weaponry are especially fantastic at attacking Ork artillery and displacing Ork infantry in cover) and they also act as shields for my more expensive units like my Leman Russes and Basilisks.

It might be nice if they could get some quality of life improvements like experience protection that prevents them from losing so many 'skulls' of experience as they do constantly need refitting, but that's not up to me alone.

[rezaf]

Let me see if I understand this right. You guys are advocating for better infantry. It sounds like you want them on the same level as tanks and heavy vehicles, just serving a different role. Do you really think basic Steel Legion soldiers with only lasguns will ever be made strong enough to warrant a 500 or 700 price tag? Do I really need to explain how that's not a good idea?

A variety of topics are discussed in this topic, but for this particular issue, I think it's is not about the price tag, it's about unit slots. This was the reason for the suggestion of just offering more deployment slots for a VERY barebone "solution", against which you argued all the points which I adressed in my previous post.
In the short term, INF is sure a bargain. But someone did the math in another thread, if you sum up what the constant reinforcements (or replacements) cost you, they eventually become more expensive than tanks - eventually more expensive than titans in the long run, I guess.
Yes, you can buy more mid-mission, but besides this being a stupid mechanic in PzC and an even more stupid mechanic in a WH40k themed game (at least in my opinion), it's also extremely situational. Sometimes, the nearest staging area is several turns away from the front, so you lose these turns, plus the turn it takes to recruit the new unit. In a scenario that has only ten turns remaining, this is an eternity, especially if you compare it to a more powerful unit that in Armageddon also can never run out of ammo and, disregarding the occasional turn to regain morale, can operate at peak efficiency all that time.

The real solution is go for Horsts idea and forego a volume based deployment limit in favor of a point based one. I actually had that same idea earlier, and I'm sure someone did before me - after all, it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots, with the tabletop featuring exactly that model.
_____
rezaf

[produit]

From my experience of 1.2, I am not complaining about the performances of the infantry. It is working quite well, even if minor changes should be done (e.g. Terminator with one assault cannon have ~4x more firepower that the standard terminators, if I am counting correctly).

The problem mainly, is that if you add 3-5 more slots, especially in act 1, I will buy more infantry (5-6 cheap infantries), to use them as screen. Now, with the low number of slots and high requisition, I field mainly tanks in act1.
It should be able to field a slightly bigger army with less quality for playing differently.
Thus I am following the point of Rezaf.

But infantry works well in 1.2, but could work even better, with a slightly increased number of slots (forcing you to use 2 turns to deploy your army, but that is not a problem).

The rest of the problems are not related to gameplay, but more to 40k lore. For example, 15 Devastators should wield a bit more firepower than 10 Terminators with an assault canon. A Reaver Titan should perhaps cost more that 20 terminators with 2 Land-Riders. Some shooting orks seems also a bit overpowered in distance shooting, but most of them are underpowered in close combat. etc.

[xxaosicxx]

The real solution is go for Horsts idea and forego a volume based deployment limit in favor of a point based one. I actually had that same idea earlier, and I'm sure someone did before me - after all, it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots, with the tabletop featuring exactly that model.

Yup.

The idea of buying in additional units, mid-mission, is so backwards to me as a table-top player - I feel like I'm cheating every time I do it lol.

What I do (or did, until I realise I was getting slaughtered), to simulate the TT experience, is buy units at the start and then don't deploy them straight away (i.e. keep them in reserves, in TT terminology)...then as I need more units, I deploy more units from my finite reserves, a la the tabletop game - and I stop myself "purchasing" addition forces as the situation demands it, because to me the meta-game is as important as the game, and sizing up what's needed for the battle is part of the fun. This doesn't work, of course, because I have absolutely zero idea as to the size of the opponents force in 40K Armageddon, whereas on the table-top I'd know my opponents was playing to the same point value as me (unless otherwise agreed).

Incidentally, on the table-top, I regularly played games where I allowed my Imperial Guard playing friends to have 50% more points than I had (playing Chaos, or Eldar) because the guard were so under-powered if they played an infantry/horde based army that they'd be slaughtered in a handful of turns without the points boost. The only way the Guard would ever stand a chance is if they played a mechanised army (all squads in Chimeras, lots of Leman Russ tanks, Artillery units etc) - which isn't supposed to be the case, but even GW couldn't balance how cack guardsmen are for the points lol.

[Aekar]

Let me see if I understand this right. You guys are advocating for better infantry. It sounds like you want them on the same level as tanks and heavy vehicles, just serving a different role.

I think we should really refocus on the "gameplay" front.
There is a real gameplay situation to face and address.
We are not so speaking about "empowering infantry", and if we were, I believe reducing the debate about strictly "balancing infantry vs other units" will detrack the focus on gameplay.

Anytime a strategy game as deep as a PzC / Armaggeddon model reduces its scope and brings "automatic choices and decisions" to the player, as in "it is the only thing that works anyway, the remaining is useless and not well thought", you bring a gameplay situation that hinders the game value to the player. You also reduce the freedom of thinking a player may take, the depth of your game and of the situation it involves.


The problem we all feel is that infantries may have a limitation to their gameplay value.
I played all Acts on 1.01.
As I said before, 1.02 should have improved Acts 2 and 3 a lot ; but that doesn't mean infantry will fit a different purpose here.


Are we making the situation "more dramatic" than it should be?
I don't know... but what I know though is that some of the ideas exchanged here will be greatly benefical to the game.


I strongly believe not using infantry and not taking losses with them, is anti-W40K-ish; it is contrary to the theme.
Creating a gameplay "nullifying" situation with infantry, by making the player playing them without engaging them in combat, because he should rely on more resilient units (heavy tanks) to soften/destroy the enemies first and foremost, isn't a thing to be proud of on the game design for a W40K game, and should not be the "backbone" of the war situations it represents.

I still strongly believe thoughts and ideas shall be shared to address that situation.
Let's pick and consider them a bit.


The objective isn't to remove any need for "softening" targets before engaging them.
The objective isn't also to make infantries capable of filling the roles of heavies.
The objective is to address the other infantry gameplay problems in the campaigns and in the mods.

Multiplayer is another matter, we could say it fits some different role there, and it is because of the way requisition is spent to cover for casualties in the campaign.


There are many available infantry units that the player "discards" in his mind, because he tried them on Act I and felt the casualty/req loss, and because he sees their ineffectiveness on armor.

It is because of:

- the way casualties are managed; as long as casualties recovery will be autospent, infantries will be despised by the player as they "can and will" take losses. And avoiding combat only because you want to avoid losses isn't the way infantry shall be played in W40K, according to me. The Armaggeddon battles were millions of men and orks also slaughtering each other.

- the way armor is managed; with no ""soft" and "hard" real values, the limitation of AT weaponry is that it can just kill anything, but do not have as many shots as machine guns, and machine guns can then kill a lot more of soft things. I believe it is a design that actually works. But there is a part that doesn't work. The part that doesn't work is the way retaliation is managed, and the way casualties are managed, making all kind of AT inf useless. Who uses the infantry antitank? No one I suppose.

- the way weapons are composed and used ; with no ammo, you remove the need for "secondary units", and stay with your resilient ones as main units ; with weapon simplification (all models of the squad have the same weapon) you remove some the TT-feel and depth of W40K composition.



I think the first great move would be to address the casualties automanagement feature differently.
Make it cost the same during the battle, but halve its "autospent" cost for infantry units between battles.
It will work wonders, imho.

It is cheap to bring in in development, and will work toward the right purpose, which is making inf units more engaged into battle in the mind and play of the player.
Reducing it by half is the minimal I believe, but you can extend that scope.


The second great move would be (that's open to debate) to introduce ammo.
Units which spent their ammo need secondary units to make the shots while you recover with Rest and Refit, so you immediately need more diverse (and more numerous) units.
It would mean any kind of unit, not only infantry; but it will make core slots more used to their max and because of the costs, some infantries will also see more real combat.
This change may affect scenario balance (you possibly take more time for the scenarios) and the AI will ave to rest if its ammo is spent.
But considering I completed everything on Hard on 1.01, with real difficulties and challenge on six of the scenarios, and since I am no military genius, I believe it will still be playable and enjoyable.
Adding ammo management would aso add that layer of depth and moddability.


The third great move would be to work on weapons. As Horst mentioned.
I believe it would be great to have a number count, ie the number of such weapons you have on a unit.
But is is more with an idea and focus to allow more of the TT feelings, and to allow Armaggeddon to be even more loved and enjoyed.
it will work especially for infantries,and there will then be deeper infantry compositions available.
And deeper possibilities for mods.


If you make:
- the first change (casualty costs for inf) for the next patch,
- the second change (ammo) for another patch in one or two months,
- and the third change (weapon composition and "TT feelings") for another patch in two or three months (but consider three months is late in terms of game life, depending in its success, appeal and replayability of course)
... and you'll have happy players around


These are my own ideas on the matter, of course I'm but a low Human and no perfect Primarch...
but I believe the problem is obvious and small steps may even make the situation so more lovable and deep to the player.
Couple that with only a slight increase in core slots at some scenarios, and you'll have a nice situation.


Let's share more infantry blood!
Let's engage them more into combat!

That's the W40K / guardsmen spirit.


EDIT :
Incidentally, if you manage also to patch the AI behaviour (that doesn't engage units which can hurt it, thus avoiding the heaviest units and making them even more "resilient" that they actually are), you will also reduce the "AI mass targeting" of infantry units and will spread that damage more, and also make heavies less resilient, and infantries then more useful in the mind of the player.

[Galdred]

Let me see if I understand this right. You guys are advocating for better infantry. It sounds like you want them on the same level as tanks and heavy vehicles, just serving a different role. Do you really think basic Steel Legion soldiers with only lasguns will ever be made strong enough to warrant a 500 or 700 price tag? Do I really need to explain how that's not a good idea?

What I would actually like is some consistency. There is quite a wide gap between the cheap infantry we have now, and a 500 or 700 value btw, so no need to use strawman arguments.
Infantry is not consistent with other systems on many levels :

AT vs anti Infantry weapons
- Anti infantry weapons scaling is reversed compared to AT weapons (ie 8 bolters are weaker than 3*1 bolter, while 6 lascannons are stronger than 1.5*4 Lascannons...).
- Infantry defense is almost on par with light vehicle : Steel Legion infantry has defense 30. Space Marines only have 40, and Rhino have 50.
The consequence is as follow :
Steel Legion unit with Lasguns vs Steel Legion with Lasgun : 8 - 8
vs Space Marines : 15 - 3 (6) : So only 2 less HP lost . These armors do not even protect correctly from small arms
vs Rhino : 5 - 1 (5) . So Rhino only loses 37.5% less HP than Steel legion infantry to small arm fire.
I would like Infantry numbers, and cover to be their main defense, not vehicle grade personal armor...
Resilience
You said yourself that ork horde should be about more ork units, and not 100 strong ork units. Then why give them higher Strength count than guards? I would have much less problem with the system if Guards, orks, and Space Marines had similar unit strength actually. If the number of heavy weapons, and the anti infantry weapons strength vs vehicle armor were fixed, it would be much less of an issue. I understand that in a system where lasguns can routinely make tanks explode, it is not a good idea. But why is it the case in the first place is beyond me...
No wonder AT weapons are a reasonnable choice against infantry then.
Another issue is that retaliation is a very strong deterrent against attacks, which contributes the most to Titan and super heavy tanks survivability, but infantry retaliation quickly drops to horrible level (ie engaging fresh infantry head on might not be very cost efficient, but it quickly becomes so as the infantry Strength drops).
Decreasing infantry armor, and anti infantry weapon strength (or upping every AT weapon and vehicle strength) would really help both make the game more consistent with its 40K roots, and help differentiate infantry from tanks.
Loadout
I dislike the idea of 3 armed terminators. Either abstract the system (with global AP and AT values per unit), or don't, but I don't think it works too well to have both at the same time, and I find the idea of 3 armed terminators, as well as Marines firing both a graviton gun and a bolter at the same time quite mood killing. If we end up with a nonsensical weapon loadouts and values, we could as well have used aggregated AP and AT values for each unit, instead of trying to represent each weapon system independently.
Transportation
Same there. If unit numbers were not completely distorted, we could have a correct ratio of infantry/transport. Currently, we can only fit 3 marines in a Rhino, or 2.5 terminators in a Land Raider.

I think all these things contribute to detach the gameplay from the theme.

The problem is not that it is still possible to use infantry and win the campaign, but that you can completely skip infantry (except for capping points) , and still win the campaign. That said, most of my complains were from 1.01 too. I have not tried 1.02 much, and the changes seem to go in the right direction.

[Horst]

Army point limits can actually work very well together with core slots, like for instance 5000 points with 20 slots for a specific scenario. Or 1000 points with 10 slots for a deep strike mission - oops, no titans possible!
You basically only need to add a new army point limit variable to each scenario. If no point limit is set, no army point limit is used, hence old scenarios and campaigns would still be compatible with only core slots as limit.
I personally prefer variety in scenario missions. I don't really need more and more units bashing together.

About infantry: problem in the game is that infantry has no real close terrain advantage. In Panzer Corps, it could destroy anything in close terrain, what is here in WA not possible with the super-heavy and Titan units anymore thanks to the immunity when defense gets too high.
The introduction of direct ranged attacks wasn’t really helpful for the poor infantry in WA either. In PzC, tanks had to rumble into close terrain like cities if they really want to capture these hexes. You couldn’t really do that without own infantry. In WA, every Tank and Titan abuses its range advantage and can decimate like artillery the pitiful infantry wherever it is without retaliation until its morale turns deep red for easy push overs. The number of units that can safely attack a single target is much higher here than in PzC with the direct-fire range of 0.
Yeah, it's quite tricky how to help squishy infantry units against powerful vehicles with ranged attacks. Maybe higher cover bonuses from terrain help which can only be circumvented by other infantry. Similar, like in PzC with entrenchment bonus that is lower for infantry than for vehicles and especially indirect artillery fire.

[Kerensky]

No close terrain advantage? I dunno, my assault teams do a great job because their assault weapons ignore all terrain defense modifiers.

As for assaulting large vehicles in close quarters though? Well for the most part heavy tanks can't even enter buildings now as a result of the scale change. The close defense mechanic was removed though, yes. 40K was very much was turned into a game of needing the right weapon to engage the right target. You guys like to reiterate that that AT weapons are strong against infantry, and they are, but they aren't efficient. Look at the price of the Leman Russ Annhilator and see how many turns it takes to destroy an Ork infantry unit in good cover compared to a proper assault team with a much lower price engaging the same target under the same circumstances.

Also, by now you guys are some pretty veteran players with a pretty good understanding of the game. The problem with increased defense bonuses for terrain is that it was discovered to be a totally newbie unfriendly mechanic. It is incredibly punishing gameplay when players pick units simply because they are cool looking or expensive and watch them be totally ineffective against what appears to just be a large swarm of really weak gretchin. In fact in BETA we had considerably better terrain defense bonuses generated by cover, but players entering the game with no prior knowledge of it's mechanics were struggling with this concept so badly that it was being flat out mistaken for a bug.

As interesting as this very advanced level discussion is, you do have to keep in mind the vast majority of our players are not playing on your level and we do have to keep them in mind with our designs.

[Galdred]

I much preferred the time when infantry cover was stronger actually. I think the confusion came from a lack of information in the UI, and lack of explanation in the tutorial rather than the mechanism itself. That and anti cover units are somewhat pointless now, given the high risk they need to take (I'm talking about hellhound, and similar vehicles. Some assault infantry still work indeed, although they can take very high casualties).
XCom provided very strong cover boni, and no one complained it was confusing, because they were clearly shown on the map (with icons), and the tutorial focused on it.

[Kerensky]

I somewhat liked it that way too, it made big, low RoF AT weapons even worse at attacking infantry in good cover and meant assault weapons that ignored terrain bonuses even more important to utilize properly. We can't always get what we want though, there is a big picture we must respect. It really was quite punishing gameplay, and for that reason it had to change.

[TheGrayMouser]

Also, by now you guys are some pretty veteran players with a pretty good understanding of the game. The problem with increased defense bonuses for terrain is that it was discovered to be a totally newbie unfriendly mechanic. It is incredibly punishing gameplay when players pick units simply because they are cool looking or expensive and watch them be totally ineffective against what appears to just be a large swarm of really weak gretchin. In fact in BETA we had considerably better terrain defense bonuses generated by cover, but players entering the game with no prior knowledge of it's mechanics were struggling with this concept so badly that it was being flat out mistaken for a bug.

As interesting as this very advanced level discussion is, you do have to keep in mind the vast majority of our players are not playing on your level and we do have to keep them in mind with our designs.

This is one of the most depressing things Ive heard from a developer.

How can you make a new game that assumes to be original and stands out in the crowd if your worried about "no prior knowledge of its mechanics" By definition, a new game should have new mechanics that veterans AND newbies need to learn. (especially such a basic concept that cover will keep you from getting dead..)

Ive heard you bring up efficiency a lot. Sorry but thats a more complicated long term gameplay style analysis, yet you expect "newbies" to get this over the concept of entrenchment= good? Plus I don't even think its true in the long run. All I know is, sure a 30 sp infantry unit will kill a few more orcs in one volley than a tank, but they WILL suffer 20-30% casualties while the tank, maybe a few hp's. Then on the return attack(theAi turn), the infantry is dead, cover or no, but the tank might be knocked down to 3-4 sp, still combat effective. Over the span of several scenarios, I don't see how you can argue that thats cost effective.

I don't believe anyone is asking infantry to be "better" in a linear way. Give them the strengths expected out of infantry in a game that is loosely similar to WW2 or modern combat in a scifi type way, whether its more core slots, ammo ( I think this is key) elite replacements, ability to entrench, whatever but PLEASE make them feel more like infantry.

[Kerensky]

There's a difference between being punished and having to learn and master the intricacies of way the game works. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I'm just trying to explain why the system was set up the way it is. If was up to me, things would have been far different, but it wasn't up to me. We just made the best we could from what we were given. And really, I think we ended up with a solid game for 1.0.

Does that mean we stop here? No I'm sure many improvements are coming in the future, so don't be depressed.

[Kerensky]

It's interesting to discuss efficiency in theorycraft, but right next door in another thread we see the practical application of this.
http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=235&t=54925

Also mentions how difficulty infantry in cover is to combat. And yet here we are theorycrafting to make infantry in cover even stronger.

[Curator]

Newcomers are always the core of a community for commercial products. But to make good games, you should not simplify the mechanics, but make it visible. Most likely people did not understand about the cover because of little informative interface\tutorial. Even now it is very not excelent, and in 1.00-1.01 interface was completly terrible. So Example with xcom (where everything is difficult and ok) is very good.

[Plaid]

By the way game do not provide much information how cover and reduce LoS works.
Looks like not only target hex matters, but hexes through which projectile travels as well (shooting from the corner of building or through the forest seems less effective). But it is documented nowhere, so yes, people get confused.

[Aekar]

I wasn't speaking about cover myself.
People here are making this logical fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division


Please separate the suggestions provided here.
I was speaking myself about making the casualty recovery cost reduced for infantries (at least by half, maybe even more), so as to engage them in combat and make them bleed, and stop a reduction of gameplay also contrary to the theme.

Please, if we want to get our ideas and solutions through, we shall address them one by one
That's like wishing to become a professional quality debate, but it may be required from us all if we want to get this through

It's interesting to discuss efficiency in theorycraft, but right next door in another thread we see the practical application of this.
viewtopic.php?f=235&t=54925

If I remember well, the combined arms involved in that mission are also from fast vehicles, and much less from infantry combat.
I used infantries to "finish things" there. (EDIT : but vehicles was also a main thing)

[Galdred]

Actually, Aekar has a point : I don't see how the arguments developed there contradict my initial statement :
Infantry is poorly represented with each squad member considered to have the same weapon loadout, which makes things very difficult to balance (1 heavy bolter per ork in a big shoota platoon, or 3 weapons per terminator, including an assault cannon in an AC terminator platoon...), as it makes infantry hit too hard, and sustain too little damage.
It is not only bad from a balance point of view (as it forces very different infantry unit size depending on their firepower), but also themewise (as these loadouts have nothing in common with your usual 40K loadout : no one would use Space Marines without heavy or special weapons, and platoons of 1 heavy weapon/soldier are usually not permitted, except for a few special cases like Centurions).
Increasing cover would be a very different thing altogether indeed.

If 1 unit of infantry was representing a squad instead of an individual, and one hitpoint one guy(so only 1 HP lost per shot max), it would make things much easier to balance (especially since the game already can make 5 bolters different than 5*1 bolter).

Now about watering things down for newbies, I really think it is a horrible solution. Once again, I much prefer XCom solution :

Just use a mouse over to make the gameplay mechanics less obtuse, and voila.

[JimmyC]

...I was speaking myself about making the casualty recovery cost reduced for infantries (at least by half, maybe even more), so as to engage them in combat and make them bleed, and stop a reduction of gameplay also contrary to the theme.

But does requisition work that way after missions? My understanding is that you have a requisition cap and then the cost of your units are deducted from that cap, giving you an amount left to spend.

So if i had a unit with full health, vs the same type with only 1 hp left, in the next scenario i would have exactly the same requisition after replacements.

It therefore doesnt matter in the slightest whether all my units finished the scenario crippled, or whether they all finished with full health, as the req cap system means that i start with the same req anyway (the real downside being that you lose experience on your units). Isn't this the way it works? Really, its only ever a problem if you exceed the next scenario's req cap and therefore cant fully repair everyone (in which case you can just sack them and get their unit price back).

Im not trying to talk you down and i in fact quite like the idea of having additional unit slots (with unchanged requisition), but i just thought thats how req works in Armageddon? Can someone please confirm?