Thoughts on infantry

[jeep]

Anyone think that infantry is too weak (compared to tanks)?

Tanks aren't much more expensive, travel faster, eat the same food/oil, and pretty much always win in a fight (even against inf entrenched in cities).

Other than for airfields, any reason to use them?

[rich12545]

They make good cheap defensive units.

[StellarRat]

You can mod them to make them tougher. Also they can entrench if they sit in one place. They seem pretty tough to me. Maybe they need more bonus for restricted terrian and cities.

[Brit]

Anyone think that infantry is too weak (compared to tanks)?

Tanks aren't much more expensive, travel faster, eat the same food/oil, and pretty much always win in a fight (even against inf entrenched in cities).

Other than for airfields, any reason to use them?

I can take another look at their combat balance. As far as their combat abilities, they get some good bonuses in certain terrain when they are entrenched. I think they're getting a 75% defense bonus if they're entrenched in a city.

[StellarRat]

I can take another look at their combat balance. As far as their combat abilities, they get some good bonuses in certain terrain when they are entrenched. I think they're getting a 75% defense bonus if they're entrenched in a city.

Tanks vs. Infantry in city = Bad for Tanks. You really only have three choices in that scenario. Send A LOT of tanks = expensive, flatten the city with artillery and air power = hmm...why did I fight for this place, send in your own infantry = blood running down the streets.

[Brit]

Anyone think that infantry is too weak (compared to tanks)?

Tanks aren't much more expensive, travel faster, eat the same food/oil, and pretty much always win in a fight (even against inf entrenched in cities).

Other than for airfields, any reason to use them?

I took a look at this in the combat simulator. I wasn't very impressed with how well infantry fight-off tanks - and that assumes the infantry are entrenched in a city. In that situation, infantry have a slight advantage over tanks when you take their production costs into account (50 for infantry, 75 for tanks), but tanks win most of the time.

[Deadmeat1471]

Anyone think that infantry is too weak (compared to tanks)?

Tanks aren't much more expensive, travel faster, eat the same food/oil, and pretty much always win in a fight (even against inf entrenched in cities).

Other than for airfields, any reason to use them?

Anybody think this is realistic? lol

and if troops in town, they have decent chance + can research better inf

seems they need a down hit on their bad terrain penaltys tho, tanks only function well in open terrain!

[StellarRat]

Tanks do well in open terrain in mobile battles. Against entrenched enemies in closed terrain they suck. One thing that would probably be realistic is to reduce the defense or the offense (or both) of tanks in closed terrain since they can't use their long range weapons as well. I don't know if that can be done in the unit editor right now or not.

[Deadmeat1471]

reduce only offence, if you reduce defence infantry will be insane strong. tanks in urban environments are slowed because they fight street to street, their offensive capacity is reduced, their defence ie their armor is the same. My argument anyway.

[jeep]

I think that for game play purposes, the following would work well:

Inf entrenched in city vrs tank (inf wins 80% of time)

Inf entrenched in mountain vrs tank (inf wins 70% of time)

Inf entrenched in forest vrs tank (inf wins 60% of time)

Inf otherwise generally looses

Could perhaps do this by giving inf more hit points? Multiple ways to acheive it of course.

Tactically, this makes inf more useful. Right now they are too slow for offense, and too weak for defence. They aren't cheap either because they eat as much food/oil as a tank and that is often the limiting factor.

This will also drive more need for combined arms to be effective. Tanks for quickly capturing land resources and mobile fights. Inf for defensive positions. Tanks will need some artillery backup when sieging cities with lots of dug in inf. Defender can also use arty as counterbatterys.

Probably need to experiment with it a bit to get it right.

[jeep]

Brit, I just noticed that you did up the inf defense value in the last update.

Ran the combat sim and it looks like for same tech level tank vrs inf entreched in cities the odds are right at 50/50 (avg damage on tank is 2x on inf, but inf has 1/2 hp). Is there anyway to set the combat sim to sim 2 (or more) turns?

Better, but given that inf tech level usually lags tank tech level by 1 tanks still have a slight advantage.

I still think that unless entreched inf doesn't have a clear advantage over tanks it doesn't make sense to use them (like 70-80%). They are slow, takes time to entrench, and are no good at offense. They need to excel at defense or they won't be used.

I do see the point that in a tank vrs entrenched inf fight the tank side looses more production points overall. But the main point of the defensive unit is to win the battle, not attrite the enemy. Whoever wins gets the city and that alone will offset any production point difference.

A different way to make them more useful is to have them use only 0.5 food/oil. You could then have 2 in each city (and thus better defense). It just seems odd to have a inf army eat less than a tank army...

[Brit]

Thanks for the feedback.

Brit, I just noticed that you did up the inf defense value in the last update.

Ran the combat sim and it looks like for same tech level tank vrs inf entreched in cities the odds are right at 50/50 (avg damage on tank is 2x on inf, but inf has 1/2 hp). Is there anyway to set the combat sim to sim 2 (or more) turns?

The damage for two turns will just be twice the values you see for one turn. I don't know if that's what you're looking for.

Better, but given that inf tech level usually lags tank tech level by 1 tanks still have a slight advantage.

As far as the technology levels, the infantry (class 3) takes about the same research (140 cummulative research) as tank (class 3) (150 cummulative research).

I still think that unless entreched inf doesn't have a clear advantage over tanks it doesn't make sense to use them (like 70-80%). They are slow, takes time to entrench, and are no good at offense. They need to excel at defense or they won't be used.

I do see the point that in a tank vrs entrenched inf fight the tank side looses more production points overall. But the main point of the defensive unit is to win the battle, not attrite the enemy. Whoever wins gets the city and that alone will offset any production point difference.

A different way to make them more useful is to have them use only 0.5 food/oil. You could then have 2 in each city (and thus better defense). It just seems odd to have a inf army eat less than a tank army...

One of the things I was thinking about when balancing the infantry and tanks is the cost of production vs combat power. Since tanks cost a bit more than infantry, then a player might have more infantry in a city than the attacker has tanks. In other words, if an infantry costs 50 and a tank costs 75, then if both sides spend the same on production, it will be 3 Infantry vs 2 tanks.

Infantry are a little better against tactical bombers than tanks, so they have some advantage there.

Also, the infantry doesn't consume oil (but tanks do).

I can take another look at it, but there's some food for thought anyway.

[StellarRat]

"I still think that unless entreched inf doesn't have a clear advantage over tanks it doesn't make sense to use them (like 70-80%). They are slow, takes time to entrench, and are no good at offense. They need to excel at defense or they won't be used.

I do see the point that in a tank vrs entrenched inf fight the tank side looses more production points overall. But the main point of the defensive unit is to win the battle, not attrite the enemy. Whoever wins gets the city and that alone will offset any production point difference.

A different way to make them more useful is to have them use only 0.5 food/oil. You could then have 2 in each city (and thus better defense). It just seems odd to have a inf army eat less than a tank army..."

I'm going to disagree with Jeep on some of this.

I could see infantry using .5 oil, but not .5 food. You have to keep in mind that even armored units contain a large amount of mechanized infantry. It's not just tanks. So, I don't think the food difference should be much, if anything. As far as the cost differential I think armored units should cost substantially more, which is the way it is now. I don't think a price increase for tanks is warranted. Even entrenched infantry is at a big disadvantage against tanks in open terrain, or light woods. They really don't have any advantage unless the terrain is very closed. Jungles, mountains and cities are where they excel at defense. So, I think Brit has that about right. Also, infantry is much faster in woods and mountains than tanks are right now, so they do have that advantage too.

Brit have you considered having light and heavy woods/jungle? There is a big difference between a jungle and a European wooded area. I would think air power and tanks offroad would be nearly ineffective against infantry in jungle or heavy forests.

[jeep]

Thanks for the feedback..

Thanks for EOS, I've been wishing for a game like this for years

The damage for two turns will just be twice the values you see for one turn. I don't know if that's what you're looking for.

Yes

As far as the technology levels, the infantry (class 3) takes about the same research (140 cummulative research) as tank (class 3) (150 cummulative research).

Class Tank Inf

--------------------------------

1 30 0

2 60 65

3 150 140

4 205 245

5 320 400

6 420 610

7 630 NA

After TL 3 is where tanks tend to be ahead by 1 level. Was this intentional?

One of the things I was thinking about when balancing the infantry and tanks is the cost of production vs combat power. Since tanks cost a bit more than infantry, then a player might have more infantry in a city than the attacker has tanks. In other words, if an infantry costs 50 and a tank costs 75, then if both sides spend the same on production, it will be 3 Infantry vs 2 tanks.

I thought about this too, but think about it from the perspective of available alternatives. For the same production, I could defend my city with either 3 inf or 2 tanks.

If I choose inf:

Sim 2 TL5 tanks verses 3 TL4 inf (city, ent) this doesn't result in a clear winner (6.6 to tanks, 4.6 to inf)

Inf are vulnerable to artillery attack (they would need to untrench and go into the open to get the arty)

They eat 3 food instead of 2

Not much good for offense

If I choose tanks:

50/50 chance of winning against same attacker

attacking arty will be dead

only 2 food

Can easily use for offense

This is why I think inf must be stellar at defense. Otherwise tanks are the always the better buy.

For balance, remember that good defense to is difficult to implement. If I have a lot of inf in a city, bring in arty or BBs, or just attack elsewhere. You can't win the game with defense, you can only force your opponent to go around your strongpoints. I think strong inf will add some tactical options to the game.

Infantry are a little better against tactical bombers than tanks, so they have some advantage there.

True, but generally the bombers will target something else. If inf is easy to defeat on land, why waste your air on them.

Also, the infantry doesn't consume oil (but tanks do).

For some reason I thought they did, but I guess not. Of course if they are used defensively they wouldn't move anyway. Would be nice for scouting, but they are still slow....

I can take another look at it, but there's some food for thought anyway.

Again, many thanks

[jeep]

Just fired up the editor and found something that fits:

Changed the combat type: soft to have

150% bonus for cities/forest (+25%)

175% bonus for mountains (+25%)

75% bonus for entrenched (+25%)

With this entrenched inf in good terrain has an advantage over the tanks, otherwise they are dead meat as normal. I'll play with this for awhile to see how it does.

[StellarRat]

You do realize that tanks were originally designed with the express purpose of killing entrenched infantry right? Remember WW I, trenches everywhere, etc... infantry in open ground is hopeless against tanks. In the other terrain types you listed I could probably agree with your numbers.

[jeep]

Inf armies always have an anti tank component. In WW2, it was mostly AT guns. Modern day it is largely guided missiles. The limitation of these weapons is that they need prepared & hidden positions, but when used properly they beat the tanks every time.

Tanks have the advantage whenever the defender isn't prepared (moving encounters, flank attacks, etc). AT guns / etc also aren't worth much on the offense.

The Combat mission / Strike force games illustrate this really well at the tactical level. If you run your armor against dug in AT, you are toast You need to send in scouts to find them, soften them up with arty/air, then hit them from the direction they least expect.

I'm just trying to model this more accurately, while adding more planning to the ground combat portion. Without it I think we should all just build tanks (the superunit). Sort of like battleships were before Brit made them weak against subs. Now you have to protect the BBs instead of just building a bunch and stomping everything.

You probably do have a point about tanks in WW1. The inf really didn't have much AT then. Not really sure how they stopped the tanks, mustard gas???? Hit them with Arty?? Maybe they just ran and hoped the tanks got stuck

[hoolaman]

I have suggested in some other thread that there could be combat bonuses based on the facing of a unit ie they can only entrench in one direction or something. Different attackers coming from multiple directions would also have big bonuses. Probably a bit complex for EoS though I guess, and once combat is started, there can be no reinforcements.

At the moment the speed of tanks and the ability to exploit breakthroughs into rear areas is less useful because units defend in every direction at once. Really the speed of units in EoS seems to not be as critical as it should be.

[StellarRat]

Inf armies always have an anti tank component. In WW2, it was mostly AT guns. Modern day it is largely guided missiles. The limitation of these weapons is that they need prepared & hidden positions, but when used properly they beat the tanks every time.

Tanks have the advantage whenever the defender isn't prepared (moving encounters, flank attacks, etc). AT guns / etc also aren't worth much on the offense.

The Combat mission / Strike force games illustrate this really well at the tactical level. If you run your armor against dug in AT, you are toast You need to send in scouts to find them, soften them up with arty/air, then hit them from the direction they least expect.

I'm just trying to model this more accurately, while adding more planning to the ground combat portion. Without it I think we should all just build tanks (the superunit). Sort of like battleships were before Brit made them weak against subs. Now you have to protect the BBs instead of just building a bunch and stomping everything.

You probably do have a point about tanks in WW1. The inf really didn't have much AT then. Not really sure how they stopped the tanks, mustard gas???? Hit them with Arty?? Maybe they just ran and hoped the tanks got stuck

Yes, a pure tank unit would have a hard time against dug infantry, but my impression is that a tank UNIT is not just tanks. It's an armored unit with mobile infantry included, I think Brit can answer that.

A truly modern armored unit also has artillery and helicopters integrated in.

WW I tanks were only proof against small caliber fire and could be stopped by any kind of artillery. Most were stopped by breakdowns and getting stuck.

[StellarRat]

I was a little surprised when Brit said that grouping units gave no advantage in combat. If we could do that we could build our own combined units to solve some of these issues.

[jeep]

It is a little hard to manage combined arms right now.

I like to try to back up my tank assaults with arty, but whenever arty is involved the defender will charge the arty and destroy them. Keeping your tanks just far enough ahead to block the charge but not too far to be out of support range is not manageable.... One side effect is that if inf charges, they loose entrechment. Kind of models the effect of bombardment in a strange way...

Similar issue with protecting transports. You can't just put them in a group with warships (like a normal convoy). This helps some, since attackers will die fast. But they still get hits in on your transports. Maybe this is realistic though. Back when I played Harpoon that tended to happen anyway, since the transports were high priority targets.

So I guess if I was to fix something, it would be a way to protect your arty from ground troops. Arty should never get killed unless totally overrun, or hit with counter arty or air.

Also like the idea of bonuses for facing. The old global conquest games handled this by giving a bonus whenever a unit is attacked from more than one quadrant. Should be relatively easy to implement (easy to say for me, right ), and is no overhead for the player.

[StellarRat]

I'm all for changes that improve rea1lism, but don't add overhead for the player. That's why I was advocating for auto retreat when a ground unit is badly hurt in combat. Facing is another good idea that would make multiple unit attacks more useful since one unit could make a flanking attack.

[jeep]

What do you think of reducing the attack range of all ground units to 30 (half the viewing distance)? This would make it harder to kill arty behind your lines. Trying to think of any negative side effects of this....