infantry proposal fix v2.0

[Aekar]

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).

Jimmy I am sorry to disappoint but:
Have you tested that? I think not.

How can you explain that you can begin a scenario with no requisition, and your units not even at full strength?
Yes, it happens. Do you believe we receive less requisition maximal budget than the previous scenario? because that would be the only explanation to that, if your assumption is true.
And we know it cannot be that.
So I have to believe instead that your assumption is not true...


I have yet to do more proper tests.
And I should take some time to do that, later in the day; and say "I confirm what has been said in the following assumptions".


Assumption 1: (confirmed)
If you have a unit with 1 str left, requisition will be automatically paid to get it up.
The cost would be directly calculated from the difference in strength ; a unit with 90 % of its strength left, will cost 10 % of its value and then be at full strength again.
That has been confirmed as well in my friend's tests.
You can pay the same cost manually during a mission.


Assumption 2: (to confirm)
The results seem to be interesting:
- as long as you have req left during a mission, you should use it to recover casualties ;
- because otherwise, it will be paid from your next mission's budget.

... but that will be tested as well.


Now, don't you think people "save" the strength of their infantries during a mission?
Thinking most vulnerable units shall be preserved?
And then not using them the way they should?

That may all be good and right for units that are properly support units, but infantry shall be the core of the assault in W40K, and not support.
That they take hits and losses is also expected and normal.

I believe a change of the req cost for "repairing" infantry units would be then very proper, and it also works even if the requisition would have been handled as you say it is, as you can still repair units "during a mission" anyway.
Reducing the cost of that recovery makes it easier in the mind of the player.
He understands that if he loses a point of str on a vehicle or tank, that would cost a lot, whereas losing it on inf would be easy.

Now of course, there exists the problem of super inf like sniper units and Space Marines ...


Why not making that as a Trait, making it easy for units only with this Trait to get recovery?
I know there already exists their low cost, but it could be even better with that.
Like triple better.

[TheGrayMouser]

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.

We appear to be looking at one players issues w a specific scenario

Perhaps its a design issue with that one scenario?

[TheGrayMouser]

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.

I appreciate the insite provided, and I do understand for a sale side what needs be done, yet, yuck. I think Slitherine has a growing tendency to emphasize "ease of play" too much. I believe the target audiences willingness for depth is underestimated, and thus we get excuses for some things being watered down.
Currently the game to some degree behaves like the old 4x space games (which I never really liked) example: Space dreadnought is merely a vessel that is 10x more costly , has 10 times the defence and offensive capability of a "space destroyer/frigate". Sure you can go with #s over "quality but such games completely miss the point that classes have different combat and strategic roles. Currently, as you point out, infantry is like the space destroyer In say Master of Orion. Why would you buy them when you have dreadnoughts available? With limited slots, well there you go. Ironically, the worst of SSI's 5 star titles, Star general, actually had some really good mechanics that made destroyers viable vs a space battleship. (multiple attacks per same turn reduced and reduced the battleships initiative down to where 5 destroyers, although at heavy cost could take out a battleship...)

I look forward to and certainly anticipate improvements, I cant imagine the way fliers are handled was a "hold your ground" design decision (my guess is this was left open ended for change once feedback came in, especially as you guys have been so quiet about em)
Cheers!

[Horst]

I think the Panzer General/Corps mechanics are very easy to learn during playing. The combat prediction indicators alone show very nicely how effective this unit is against that. The undo-function additionally helps trying out different approaches to check out what to do best. Oh, and there is also the mighty load savedgame function if all fails.
The shown terrain modifiers in WA help nicely now where your units possibly park best for combat.
Whatever, let’s see what Rudy brings for the future!

[Aekar]

Very good thing on the 1.03.
My latest test with unit replacement (using Requisition) went well.
I can say that having the tooltip helps

While I still do not understand how the situations I had in 1.01 were possible (as described above, it didn't seem to work the way it does now), it seems that the thing is getting fixed and upgraded with every patch.
My latest test seemed to prove that Jimmy's assumption is now verified.
I had a friend who had varied results in 1.02 with the formula, so maybe some bugs were involved, only more tests will tell.

I can safely say I will need another go at the campaign, to see how the game behaves now.
My thanks to the devs for their continuous efforts.


I think the other thread which aims the changes toward Traits ( viewtopic.php?f=235&t=54937 ) might be better focused and with closer results for an improvement of the infantry gameplay.

[JimmyC]

Very good thing on the 1.03.
My latest test with unit replacement (using Requisition) went well.
I can say that having the tooltip helps

While I still do not understand how the situations I had in 1.01 were possible (as described above, it didn't seem to work the way it does now), it seems that the thing is getting fixed and upgraded with every patch.
My latest test seemed to prove that Jimmy's assumption is now verified.
I had a friend who had varied results in 1.02 with the formula, so maybe some bugs were involved, only more tests will tell.

I can safely say I will need another go at the campaign, to see how the game behaves now.
My thanks to the devs for their continuous efforts.


I think the other thread which aims the changes toward Traits ( viewtopic.php?f=235&t=54937 ) might be better focused and with closer results for an improvement of the infantry gameplay.

Haha, nice to know i got it right. I never actually tested it, but i read in another thread somewhere about how the requisition works and figured it out from that. It is fairly counter-intuitive though, especially for someone used to PzC and other similar games. Such a system has its merits and demerits too. Overall i think its a good system, as you can scrape through a scenario with hardly any units left and still have a good chance to win in the next scenario (something that was impossible in PzC). But i would still prefer some benefit or reward for keeping units alive, other than experience.

And getting a bit more back to topic, i think that the req system actually allows for lots of infantry and lots of infantry losses. Because as long as you win a scenario, no matter what your final force looks like, you will be just as strong for the next scenario. It therefore feels to me that the player needs to get over the "must preserve my units" mentality, to something like "willing to sacrifice units to complete the scenario in the given time". I therefore think that infantry still have a big place in the army.

Note that i am still in the old PzC mentality of "must preserve units" and am finding it hard to break out of it! I also think it should be explained a lot better how the system works, as i guess many players dont understand it and feel that they have "failed" if they win a scenario but suffer large losses. But that's not how this game works.

[Curator]

But that's not how this game works.

But we have experience for units, and now full history of the deeds. With all of it is very sad to lose a units.
One point that players choose to avoid losses - is to purchase too many super heavy and Titans.

[rezaf]

Yes, the good thing is that this game not only doesn't rely on having experienced units, it literally makes it impossible for weak frontline units to amass experience. And it has no heroes.
This is a psychological help, since you always lose a unit with next to no experience and literally nothing to set it apart from any identical unit you might replace it with.

However, it's also worth repeating that throwaway units only appear to be cheap, at least in the long run.
Having to replace the unit obviously costs you the full price tag again. If you don't lose it, but it takes heavy losses, replacing those can easily cost you more than the unit's base price in a single mission.
And in the turn you replace losses, you don't actually have a unit - it's purely nominal. Often enough, you have to spend the next turn as well to rest & refit to bring the morale back up.
These are, imo, the main reasons that make infantry and a lot of other volatile frontline units rather undesireable.
_____
rezaf

[DownTheDrain]

But we have experience for units, and now full history of the deeds. With all of it is very sad to lose a units.
One point that players choose to avoid losses - is to purchase too many super heavy and Titans.

Of course it is sad, but that's part of the game imo.
There is no real reward without risk and I can think of few things that are more boring than steamrolling the AI with an all-Titan force.

I still feel that infantry needs to be improved to find a niche and fit a more unique role, but as long as they do their job I'm okay with taking (some) losses.

Edit:
rezaf, out of curiosity, have you played the tabletop?

It's been a while since I did, but back in the day a regular Imperial army (lots of infantry, some support, etc.) would usually get eaten alive by a smaller but individually more powerful force of Chaos, for example. This was especially ironic since the Chaos army was also a lot cheaper to purchase because you didn't need a bazillion models to meet the point requirement.
The only real answer (back then) was for the Imperial player to go almost all tanks, so pretty similar to what we're seeing here.

[rezaf]

rezaf, out of curiosity, have you played the tabletop?

I toyed with the idea once and have attended a few games, but no, I haven't really played it myself.
I'm looking at it from a gameplay perspective and coming from PzC, where we had a number of rather unpopular unit types.

And I have to admit it's a rather ... situational issue? It didn't bother me at all in Act1, but in acts2 and 3, there were missions where the only role for which I used INF was capturing and/or defending objectives in locations inaccessible to titans.
_____
rezaf

[DownTheDrain]

And I have to admit it's a rather ... situational issue? It didn't bother me at all in Act1, but in acts2 and 3, there were missions where the only role for which I used INF was capturing and/or defending objectives in locations inaccessible to titans.

I agree, despite Kerensky's assertion that infantry absolutely has a role and is really cost-effective.
For all I know he might be right on the highest difficulty, but on Challenging and Hard I've done much better with an elite force supplemented by a minimum amount of throw-away cannon fodder to take objectives.

Then again, I haven't even updated to 1.03 because my units are so heavily modified currently, so I'm not exactly an authority on proper balance.

[Falke_MatrixForum]

And I have to admit it's a rather ... situational issue?
rezaf

Infantry is situational and dependant on availability of cover.With cover they can do OK but that is then generally only in a good Position for defensive missions. For a campaign you Need a force structure that has flexibility to cover different types of Scenario.

On hard i have 3 Support (Bolter & Mortar) because they can do significant damage(until mobbed by AI), 1 command for Leadership, 2 Snipers (Spotting + range 4 means that they can contribute without being a drain) as cheap fillers

Standard infantry are pointless. WIth Transport they cost 190, for 10 more i can get a Salamander Scout, that
a) Has spotting range 4
b) Has weapons range 3 (avoids more counterfire+ better for stacking at choke Points)
c) Does more damage than infantry at range 2
d) Takes less damage in open
e) Does not have reduced damaged when fully moved

[Kerensky]

The more you guys talk, the happier I am with the current system. Some of you guys like a certain play style of expensive and tough units only for maximum preservation. Some of you (myself included) have come around to accepting infantry, especially assault infantry, and use them as cost efficient forces with a high but expected casualty rate. Neither strategy is wrong, and both are viable. If we move infantry up any more, my concern will be instead of being part of an alternate strategy, they become THE strategy. You can't NOT use 1/3 of 1/2 of your core as infantry, they are too valuable for anything less. And that would be wrong.

Also, just to lighten the tone, let's keep in mind that many low end infantry units and tactics are very lore appropriate.

[Kerensky]

Standard infantry are pointless. WIth Transport they cost 190, for 10 more i can get a Salamander Scout, that
a) Has spotting range 4
b) Has weapons range 3 (avoids more counterfire+ better for stacking at choke Points)
c) Does more damage than infantry at range 2
d) Takes less damage in open
e) Does not have reduced damaged when fully moved

I agree that in the early game, the Salamander scout is a pretty fantastic vehicle for it's price and capabilities. At the same time, if you dared to replace all your Space Marine infantry with Salamander Scouts (or the Space Marine Equivalent of the Predator Destructor) you will have a really hard time in late Act2 and Act3.

[rezaf]

Some of you (myself included) have come around to accepting infantry, especially assault infantry, and use them as cost efficient forces with a high but expected casualty rate.

I know you have me on ignore, but still, the point is rather that - in a campaign - infantry is not at all a cost-effective unit (the answer is a bit more complicated, but that's what it boils down to).

At the same time, if dared to replace all your Space Marine infantry with Salamander Scouts (or the Space Marine Equivalent of the Predator Destructor) you will have a really hard time in late Act2 and Act3.

I'm curious, did anyone really keep any units from act 1? I kept the artillery around for a couple of missions, because it was maxed out on XP, but ultimately, all the conventional Steel Legion stuff is so weaksauce compared to the Space Marines, it's no contest. From a strict efficiency point of view, it was superheavies, titans and space marine infantry. I guess/hope this has changed a little bit with the latest patches, but still...

I tried to run with Steel Legion stuff, but it's sooooo volatile...
_____
rezaf

[Kerensky]

Nope, I'm not ignoring anyone.

Considering the new system of not carrying over Points between scenarios (no snowball for winners keep winning and no snowball for losing units and running out of money), I think we just have to agree to disagree on this point. You can lose infantry by the dozens, and I regularly do, but it does not cripple my campaign progression. To me, that means they are cost effective.

As for not keeping Act1 units... I do. I most definitely do. Bolded the Act1 units. 14 in all, not bad for the final scenario of the game. And yes, I did win that scenario.

I just rechecked my final scenario CORE force from one of the BETA test playthough I did.

I use...
4 Baneblades (or some variant there of)
3 Titans (2 reaver 1 scout. I actually had 1 reaver 2 scouts, but the new AI actually killed one of my scout Titans in mission 22, I was impressed!)

16 infantry (4 death company assault, 1 sanguine guard, 5 rough riders, 2 Salamander Terminators, 4 ultramarine sternguards)

The rest is an assortment. 2 Command vehicles, 2 dreadnaughts, 2 land raiders, 2 destroyer tanks, and 5 artillery.

After all that, I only have 5.8k points left over for replacements. I wanted to have more spare points, considering how massive the final battle is, but I didn't want to sacrifice unit quality too much. Difficulty mode challenging BTW, which is 100% of point setting.

[Dragoon.]

Me too carried over a large amount of Act 1 units all to the end. This actually made me thing that those units are somewhat overpowered, and strangely enough they are mostly Forge World models.

2 Salamander Command which I often switched back and forth to Scout during the campaign when I thought I needed extra eyes. 2 Vendetta Gunships, as my finishers.
At the end I had 6 tanks. 1 Shadowsword and 1 Baneblade. The other 4 where still Destroyer tanks (upgraded of course). I find them completely OP. Just 480 req. for a 4 range, 90 attack, 45% penetration gun. Mounted on an 11 ini, 70 armor, 90 accuracy hull. My goodness. Thank good they didn't gave his bucket an assault weapon slot. I use tanks mainly to fight other tanks, and for that Destroyers are completely sufficient till the end. The only reason I used those two fat tanks was to add some variety, and as steel shield slash vanguard for my forces

For artillery, my 4 Bombards that I already started buying in the training campaign stayed until the end. Only in the very last mission I switched them to Deathstrike rockets.
Bombards are so much better in my opinion than Basilisks, thanks to the game mechanics that armor not just reduce damage but for the ability to completely negate it.

At last but not least my favorite unit the Steel Legion snipers. 4 hex sight and 4 hex range weapons. This is almost like cheating.
Though I lost maybe 4 or 5 of them. IF the AI spots them it will throw recklessness anything it has on them. Which of course can be abused to pull out AI defenders in more favorable terrain.
Did didn't use any Space Marine units except for 1 token unit for each chapter. Since I'm a Pike&Bow kind of guy, meaning steel and artillery, I have little use for infantry except taking cities. So Space Marines had little to offer to me. However I'm playing right now my second playthrough and I'm planing to use a pure Space Marine roster this time, as soon they are deployed. Still debating with myself if I will bend the rule for Titans. But hey, every rule need an exception to make it valid. Right ?

[kucing]

I'm curious, did anyone really keep any units from act 1? I kept the artillery around for a couple of missions, because it was maxed out on XP, but ultimately, all the conventional Steel Legion stuff is so weaksauce compared to the Space Marines, it's no contest. From a strict efficiency point of view, it was superheavies, titans and space marine infantry. I guess/hope this has changed a little bit with the latest patches, but still...

I tried to run with Steel Legion stuff, but it's sooooo volatile...
_____
rezaf

I actually ran with almost completely Steel Legion army in 1.01. My final core:

11 Titans
4 Ratling Snipers
5 normal Basilisks
3 Salamander Scouts
4 Shadowswords (weapon upgrade)
1 free Space Marine captain (the only non Steel Legion)

All of them except the titans are from act 1.

I actually don't see the point in using Space Marine infantries because they will suffer casualties. My core army is so expensive that I usually get 0 req point from mission to mission.

I find this "invisible maximum value for core army in the scenario" to be absurd, especially since the game doesn't display this number or how much penalty I am suffering from scenario to scenario. So my workaround is simple: don't let anyone die, which means I use sturdy units up front and long range units.

If I get time to replay this game using the latest patch, I would probably swap the titans with Steel Legion super heavy tanks and maybe more Basilisks.

[Galdred]

So basically, you just used 3 snipers and 1 Space Marine captain as infantry. Interesting

But back to my OP. The problem is not only a balance problem, but mostly a coherence problem. Given the way the game represents units loadout and casualties, infantry cannot be represented by giving all weapons in the squad to every strength point :

-It makes special and heavy weapons very retarded, with each soldier using both a graviton cannon and a bolter at the same time (or even worse, in the case of Assault Cannon terminators operating 3 weapons with 2 arms...), and the loadouts go against the fluff, and no army in the world would use such loadout either (ie bunching 30 machine guns together with 30 machine gunners, and zero assistant ).
-I suppose it is the reason why heavy weapons had 2 HP and lower troop count at the beginning : 1 HP for the assistant and 1 HP for the gunner.
But the max kill by a single shot is 1 strength point, regardless of HP. weapons with a strength higher than the unit defense (so basically, AT weapons firing at infantry) have a good chance to cause more HP damages (up to 1 strength point). This allows a laser cannon to destroy a heavy weapon team in a single shot. I suppose it is the reason it eventually got dropped, but we are now left with heavy weapon platoons and AT platoons of 20 heavy bolters (or missile launchers) for 20 soldiers, which is very weird (but not as weird as the plattons having each soldier firing 2 or 3 weapons at once rambo style).

So whatever the consensus on balance, the nonsensical infantry loadouts remain an issue.

[Xadie]

So whatever the consensus on balance, the nonsensical infantry loadouts remain an issue.

That's why I requested a "squad weapon"-trait so modders can define weapons that don't scale with unit size (like officer weaponry, Power Sword and the like, and, well, squad weapons like heavy bolter) You can check out the thread via: viewtopic.php?f=235&t=54937 to see what else been proposed.