Infantry Units

In the game infantry and machine guns are two different units. That is not the case irl.
So the way it plays out in the game is quite realistic and should not be changed.

I think this is the point right here. We can’t argue irl on one area and not the other.

The bulk of a military’s force irl is infantry. But currently that is not what happens, infantry is actually your least made unit. Now if the infantry line merged into g guns than so be, we could say that’s the bulk infantry. But it’s not the case.
 
1) The game doesn't need to be made accurate to IRL warfare unless you can give a compelling gameplay reason, and huge lines of purely melee infantry sounds like the exact opposite of fun gameplay
2) The game represents "units" with military units which do not have equal quantities across different types of military assets. Meaning, when you build one Swordsman and Composite Bowman unit in game, the game isn't saying you've just built 100 swordsmen and 100 composite bowmen, it is saying you built one military unit of each, and those groups would loosely represent how different types of soldiers were arranged IRL. In WW2, a battalion of US infantry was 300-1200 soldiers (3:1 light to heavy infantry, which the game separates into melee and ranged infantry) while a tank battalion was up to 70 tanks (3:1 medium to light tanks). So even if you built an equal number of mounted/armor units to melee/ranged units, you are technically building many, many times more infantry than tanks.

So no, you have a far larger quantity of melee infantry in game than anything else, because the game operates using (ambiguously defined) military units. And war in game would absolutely suck if each unit represented the same quantity, no one wants to have 100 infantry units for every tank.
 
The game doesn't need to be made accurate to IRL warfare unless you can give a compelling gameplay reason, and huge lines of purely melee infantry sounds like the exact opposite of fun gameplay...So no, you have a far larger quantity of melee infantry in game than anything else, because the game operates using (ambiguously defined) military units.

This is a valid point, and I understand the argument to leave the game as is. My argument beyond the notions of IRL is gameplay wise we have a whole class of unit that gets very little use at the moment (at least by fusiliers).

You mentioned that you feel large lines of pure melee is the opposite of fun gameplay. My problem right now is its a huge line of ranged units, which I personally fine uninteresting. Just sitting back and throwing ranged attack at anything that comes close is not particularly interesting. I would rather see a greater mix of Mounted / Infantry / Ranged....instead its Mounted / Ranged....with an infantry in an citadel or fort (or as PAD pointed out, ranged is pretty good in a citadel too, so maybe not even then!).
 
This is a valid point, and I understand the argument to leave the game as is. My argument beyond the notions of IRL is gameplay wise we have a whole class of unit that gets very little use at the moment (at least by fusiliers).

You mentioned that you feel large lines of pure melee is the opposite of fun gameplay. My problem right now is its a huge line of ranged units, which I personally fine uninteresting. Just sitting back and throwing ranged attack at anything that comes close is not particularly interesting. I would rather see a greater mix of Mounted / Infantry / Ranged....instead its Mounted / Ranged....with an infantry in an citadel or fort (or as PAD pointed out, ranged is pretty good in a citadel too, so maybe not even then!).
What you are noticing is the difference between offensive and defensive. Offensive is fun. You want to go somewhere, you hit and hit, break defense and cause havok. First to strike, double strike.
Defense is not. You place the unit in the defensive place, fortify and wait. If it endures too much damage, replace it.
You are arguing that defense with ranged units is much better. You are right. A gatling gun with medic both kills the enemy and heal your infantry wall. That's a solid defense. If you want to break through that you need different units and tactics. You need more range or more mobility to scratch the line. Or overwhelm in a weak spot with a surprise attack.

If you made infantry units capable of advancing through a well defended position, then what do you need the other unit types for? The recent change should be enough to let infantry take closer positions and allowing ranged units to attack safely.
 
If you made infantry units capable of advancing through a well defended position, then what do you need the other unit types for?
There's a difference between wanting infantry to be able to advance through a well defended position with support vs without support. No one was arguing for them to be able to do it without support, but before July 29, they couldn't do it at all.
 
There's a difference between wanting infantry to be able to advance through a well defended position with support vs without support. No one was arguing for them to be able to do it without support, but before July 29, they couldn't do it at all.

They very much could, that's why I continue to play almost exclusively warmonger and I always have a large amount of infantry units. They were a bit too weak in the later stages of the game compared to the growing power of 3 range units, indirect fire, airplanes, etc., but through Fusiliers infantry units were a vital component of your military, all the way through Mechanized Infantry.

This is a valid point, and I understand the argument to leave the game as is. My argument beyond the notions of IRL is gameplay wise we have a whole class of unit that gets very little use at the moment (at least by fusiliers).

You mentioned that you feel large lines of pure melee is the opposite of fun gameplay. My problem right now is its a huge line of ranged units, which I personally fine uninteresting. Just sitting back and throwing ranged attack at anything that comes close is not particularly interesting. I would rather see a greater mix of Mounted / Infantry / Ranged....instead its Mounted / Ranged....with an infantry in an citadel or fort (or as PAD pointed out, ranged is pretty good in a citadel too, so maybe not even then!).

I always build a significant number of infantry units, roughly matching my ranged units and definitely more than mounted and siege which are limited by strategics/usefulness. The only exception to this is UUs, which usually warp military comp a bit.

My general land military is a line of melee units to encompass the frontline with extras to surround cities, ranged units (I don't even do Medic promos either) with however many siege can actually hit the city(s) I'm targeting, and mounted melee/ranged on the flanks. I very comfortably use this strategy in Emperor in everything from very defensive Tall turtling all the way through full warmonger playthroughs. I rarely build forts except when no better tile is available, citadels are used to grab land, not defensively. Infantry have never not had a place in all my time playing VP, and while they have definitely been weaker than other units in the past they have always held the same integral position of defending your backline units.
 
I tried @kawyua's idea of using scout units instead of infantry, and so far I'm really impressed. scout promotions basically let you break the rules of game (ignore ZoC, heal even with an action) and cost a lot less experience than stalwart/march.
 
I tried @kawyua's idea of using scout units instead of infantry, and so far I'm really impressed. scout promotions basically let you break the rules of game (ignore ZoC, heal even with an action) and cost a lot less experience than stalwart/march.

That had reminded me a fairly crazy idea I had. Probably way too crazy to consider, but I'll throw it out there.

Just as the Tercio merges the anti-mounted and main infantry lines....the fusilier merges the Recon and Infantry lines. Or you could even do it as early as Tercio if you really wanted to.

1) Remove the Zeppelin (its a very weird unit as is). Explorers upgrade to fusiliers.
2) Fusiliers and beyond get Trailblazer I and Survivalist I (giving them access to the recon trees). CS adjustments would likely be needed.
3) Starting at Flight, gun melee can take the paradrop promotion.
4) At nanotech, gun melee can take the xcom drop promotion.
5) Paratroopers, Special Forces, and Xcom squad are removed from the game.
6) (Optional) At the tech that special forces come out, gun melee all gain amphibious as an automatic promotion.

So you don't focus on making Infantry stronger, but more versatile. When it comes to pure power, ranged and mounted units are still better. But now infantry give you solid numbers and a wider variety of mobile options.
 
That had reminded me a fairly crazy idea I had. Probably way too crazy to consider, but I'll throw it out there.

Just as the Tercio merges the anti-mounted and main infantry lines....the fusilier merges the Recon and Infantry lines. Or you could even do it as early as Tercio if you really wanted to.

1) Remove the Zeppelin (its a very weird unit as is). Explorers upgrade to fusiliers.
2) Fusiliers and beyond get Trailblazer I and Survivalist I (giving them access to the recon trees). CS adjustments would likely be needed.
3) Starting at Flight, gun melee can take the paradrop promotion.
4) At nanotech, gun melee can take the xcom drop promotion.
5) Paratroopers, Special Forces, and Xcom squad are removed from the game.
6) (Optional) At the tech that special forces come out, gun melee all gain amphibious as an automatic promotion.

So you don't focus on making Infantry stronger, but more versatile. When it comes to pure power, ranged and mounted units are still better. But now infantry give you solid numbers and a wider variety of mobile options.
Are you Stalker0, the guy that wants to reach golden? I'm just shivering thinking how to handle promotions from different lines.
 
Are you Stalker0, the guy that wants to reach golden? I'm just shivering thinking how to handle promotions from different lines.

Hehe I did start the idea with this is probably crazy:) But yeah I abandoned the golden pursuit for the most part. Its been over a year since I made that last round of going for gold threads, and we still see a steady cadence of new concepts and ideas. It just shows that there is still a lot of desire for more changes both with the community and mod developers, so I have switched to providing ideas and suggestions instead of locking everything down.
 
Top Bottom