Infantry Units

[tothePAIN]

I don't have an issue with ranged units being dominant relative to melee units later in the game.

While I want a balance so that the game encourages the use of multiple types of units, different units are dominant at different points of the game. This reflects historical strengths.

In the modern era... ranged units are dominants. Guns beat swords - not because a sword can't beat a gun at melee range but because a run offers range. Indeed, today, for an infantry unit to combat another fortified unit, that infantry unit does so with support from other arms - i.e., combined arms. An infantry battalion that mounts a frontal assault on a machine gun bunker will suffer many casualties.

A fortified infantry + ranged unit position should be impervious to attack until the enemy commits other combined arms forces such as armor (tanks) or air (bombers, etc.) The current weakness of the infantry unit reflects historical relative weakness - I see no reason for it to be changed.

 

[crdvis16]

I think it's OK that the infantry's role is to fortify in defensive locations. If getting the killing blow will put your infantry at risk by overextending then don't attack with that infantry (or at least attack with the infantry first and get the killing blow with ranged).

I think the most useful change would be for infantry to always get the fortification bonus even if they took an action (but not heal unless they took no actions). That way they could move forward into new tiles and more easily survive the initial attacks from pushing the line forward. I would give the bonus starting at riflemen so that it appears at the same time that gatlings get covering fire. It would improve their use as a slow advance and adds to their defense without making them overpowering on offense the way a bigger CS boost might.

 

[Gazebo]

One option would be a kill on heal for infantry units starting at the ‘gun’ period. It would give you a benefit for advancing, wouldn’t break the bank on new code, and it is AI friendly.

G

 

[Stalker0]

One option would be a kill on heal for infantry units starting at the ‘gun’ period. It would give you a benefit for advancing, wouldn’t break the bank on new code, and it is AI friendly.

G

I think it’s a good start. Honestly I don’t know if it’s enough (fresh infantry can still get destroyed when they move into the hornets nest) but it’s an easy adjustment like you said.

If that’s not enough, maybe some default cover type promotions. But I’d be happy to try that as a start

 

[tu_79]

I think it's OK that the infantry's role is to fortify in defensive locations. If getting the killing blow will put your infantry at risk by overextending then don't attack with that infantry (or at least attack with the infantry first and get the killing blow with ranged).

I think the most useful change would be for infantry to always get the fortification bonus even if they took an action (but not heal unless they took no actions). That way they could move forward into new tiles and more easily survive the initial attacks from pushing the line forward. I would give the bonus starting at riflemen so that it appears at the same time that gatlings get covering fire. It would improve their use as a slow advance and adds to their defense without making them overpowering on offense the way a bigger CS boost might.

Modern era melee units are actually ranged. They use the kind of assault rifle that's good for close range combat, while the ranged one is the kind of gating gun.

I wouldn't mind if they behaved like Stalker0 proposed, not forced to advance after a kill, starting fusiliers. That would represent their short ranged nature. And tactically, it would allow them to clean the no man's land before advancing. It would also change how combat is performed, new tactics for new weapons.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Modern era melee units are actually ranged. They use the kind of assault rifle that's good for close range combat, while the ranged one is the kind of gating gun.

I wouldn't mind if they behaved like Stalker0 proposed, not forced to advance after a kill, starting fusiliers. That would represent their short ranged nature. And tactically, it would allow them to clean the no man's land before advancing. It would also change how combat is performed, new tactics for new weapons.

This sounds legit.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

I notice that other Units gain some attribute as they become more advanced: Mounted Melee gain +1 Movement and lose their Penalty vs Cities, Siege Units get 3 Range, and Ranged Units have a debuff that simulates trench warfare. Meanwhile, Melee Gun units lose their bonus vs Mounted. A bonus such as, Heal on Kill, could make Gun Units viable in the later stages of the game.

 

[Stalker0]

A bonus such as, Heal on Kill, could make Gun Units viable in the later stages of the game.

You could call the Promotion "Reinforcement".

 

[Bhawb]

I notice that other Units gain some attribute as they become more advanced: Mounted Melee gain +1 Movement and lose their Penalty vs Cities, Siege Units get 3 Range, and Ranged Units have a debuff that simulates trench warfare. Meanwhile, Melee Gun units lose their bonus vs Mounted. A bonus such as, Heal on Kill, could make Gun Units viable in the later stages of the game.

I agree with Melee Gun units needing their own "thing" for later in the game, but I don't think heal on kill would help much because at this point in the game you don't need your infantry to grind down the enemy units, you have planes, insanely long ranged siege and ranged units, and armor units with high mobility. I think they could get their +1 movement a bit earlier, currently only Mechanized Infantry get the bonus movement, but if that movement occurred one tech earlier at the Infantry unit, that would help them "keep up" with the +1 movement to tanks. And then give them a slightly better defensive bonus of some sort, maybe an improved cover.

Edit: Actually, I think too many defensive bonuses might be a bad thing here, considering how grindy the late game already gets.

 

[Stalker0]

I think some kind of "always fortified bonus" would be cool (noted above). What's great about that is that an infantry standing still doesn't get any stronger than it is now (which doesn't need any more buffs) but it gives an immediate +25% defense to the infantry moving in to enemy territory and an even bigger bonus against G Guns when it moves in.

To me that's would be a very elegant fix if its straightforward to code. Call it "sandbags" if you like.

 

[CrazyG]

I think some kind of sandbags or fortified promotion would work well. I think it should reduce the damage they take.

You could also maybe just double the bonus for fortification starting at a certain unit or tech. It steadily becomes less significant over time due to other combat bonuses.

 

[Bhawb]

I think that's a good idea, helps represent the idea of modern infantry's ability to better entrench themselves and helps them be a bit more relevant in game.

 

[pineappledan]

So a 'foxholes' promotion? Just a permanent +25% defense?

 

[Stalker0]

So a 'foxholes' promotion? Just a permanent +25% defense?

That doesn't stack with the current fortification bonus. I think that's the key. Infantry are defensive enough, they do that job well. They just don't carry it well when they travel and attack.

Edit: Actually that's probably not enough. A key part of the "always fortified" concept, is not just the +25%, its the fact that Gatling and Machine guns do -50% damage against fortified units. That's a big big deal.

Now on the flip side it means artillery will always do +50% damage if they have volley, but personally I would welcome the trade off.

 

[Stalker0]

You could also maybe just double the bonus for fortification starting at a certain unit or tech. It steadily becomes less significant over time due to other combat bonuses.

Are you thinking for infantry only or just in general? I don't think we need to double the fort bonus of all units, we don't need a complete reshuffle. And giving infantry even more defense in a static position isn't really needed either.

 

[CrazyG]

I was thinking that foxholes/trenches/whatever could give defense against ranged attacks, like cover does. If you make the raw defense too high, it means infantry can't attack other infantry.

I find infantry's job is to take hits, one of their niches is that they can fortify while lancers/tanks cannot. Past the extremely early game, I'm not advancing through hostile land with a group of melee units. Maybe a promotion for extra HP would help with that, like dreadnought for ships.

 

[chicorbeef]

Extra HP would be great, if possible to implement. It would provide extra survivability in a way that would synergize with defense bonuses and prevent "one-shotting" while also not making them invincible, it would improve the March promotion for Infantry (more HP to heal up to), and I feel it would be fairly realistic/thematic (Infantry are the masses, Mounted Units are the specialized few).

 

[Stalker0]

Pineappledan put this idea in another thread so I thought I would transfer it here:

(PAD's quote)
I know this is new code, but could something like this work? Foxholes: +20% defence and 5HP heal while fortified. (end quote).

My thoughts on this: I think this and a lot of suggestions here are still not looking at the true problem. The issue is not the defense of infantry. When an infantry is fortified in your territory and holding a line, it does a fine job. It can soak up lots of damage, and then swaps out with another unit when it needs to. This is further magnified by forts and citadels. Even though I started this thread about the weakness of infantry, I have no problem with this use of infantry, that really do the job in this scenario.

The issue to me is: That is a very narrow niche, especially for the unit that is supposed to represent the "mass army" that most military forces are comprised of.

The reason the infantry struggles is that when it pushes in to enemy territory (aka its lost fortified and is on the move), it cannot hold up against the massed ranged that inevitably follows (you can often throw in a city attack in there too as that is common).

So while yes defense is the issue...its a specific kind of defensive scenario. If we just use a wide net and give the infantry a massive defensive boost, than it will become too good at the "fortified in a citadel" role....to a point it becomes impossible to kill. So that's why I keep pushing for a scalpel approach.

 

[pineappledan]

And I disagree with your assessment that infantry’s role is too narrow, or needs to be redefined/broadened such that they compose the bulk of your forces. CiV originally designed the melee line to hold ground. That is their job. That is also IRL infantry’s job too, they occupy territory.

You are saying they can’t hold up against ranged attacks when pushing forward... yeah. That’s right. Artillery and ranged weaponry will cut an infantry column to ribbons. It happened in the civil war, and the entirety of WWI was a demonstration of how not to use infantry on offence.

Infantry’s job is to hold a line, and they are still a bit too weak to even do that. Any new feature we can discuss needs to enhance that defensive aspect. Just my two cents

 

[Stalker0]

Infantry’s job is to hold a line, and they are still a bit too weak to even do that. Any new feature we can discuss needs to enhance that defensive aspect. Just my two cents

If we think that infantry should only be a defensive unit, than I say leave them alone. With the recent changes, they do a very fine job of just holding territory (and by that I mean your own territory, they do a terrible job of holding enemy territory, which was my point earlier). So if that's all they need to do....mission accomplished.