Infrantry: one of the core problems of the game

[Hygro]

Kryten, many American civil war battles WERE won by cavalry... its just most those were cavalry vs cavalry. Since cavalry were support and for pillaging I agree that infantry should play a larger role and cavalry should be less usefull.

 

[Michael York]

I would like to see infantry, riflemen, and MI updated to 10-10, 6-6, and 18-18.

I would not like to see musketmen updated to 4-4 because musketmen were less effective in attacking than defending. The marching forces had to stop to reload while the defenders just shuffled through their three line formation.
Is this correct?

 

[Hygro]

incorrect: musketmen were best used offensively (as described by napoleon IIRC), while it was the invention of the mass-produced rifle (rifles have been around since the 1600s but they weren't optimal for the average soldier) that made infantry much more defensive.

 

[Jaybe]

Personally, I think a lot (but not all) of these unrealistic problems could be solved by making the ATTACK of so called 'defensive' infantry exactly the same as their DEFENCE factor, and then give them a duel AI strategy of BOTH attack AND defence.

I made these changes some months ago (with minor adjustments - Infantry only 8 attack). In a meeting engagement, it should be a toss-up, given equal units. But against dug in (fortified) units, the fortified bonus is too weak: I changed both Fortified and River bonuses to 50% (and no, I did not change city/metro defense bonuses).

Changing attack/defense strengths requires changes to some upgrade paths, of course. And I gave Elite units 6 HP.

It is really cool to have an army or front line dominated by infantry, but with horse for extra punch or exploitation!

 

[Globetrotter]

Originally posted by Kryten
Forgive me Globetrotter, but I must admit that I have never played your mod....
....still, it is good to see that we have both come to the same logical conclusion.

No apologies needed Kryten, for i am still testing it.
You couldn't have played it, 'cause... t'is not public... yet...


I have given the infantry more firepower, and prevented it to upgrade to MI (i could not see how a man could upgrade into a machine ), but i am trying to make the MI carry up to 4 foot units.
Still under test.

 

[yoshi]

I'm not going to bother quoting anyone (you will know who you are) because there would be too much to quote.

The Infantry problem is more than relevant. There are vaious factors that determine the value of Infantry (in reality, not Civ3):

They are cheap (training, guns are inexpensive thus losing them is not too problematic as they can be easily replaced --my pardons to Veterans for being "Machiavellian."
Strategically, they were more appropriate to attack because, the fact that they were expendable (more or less) meant that they could use swarming tactics...until the appearance of rifle magazine (as opposed to breech-loaded --essentially the difference between Riflemen and "Infantry") and to even more devastating effect, the Machine Gun.
Cavalry would not be nearly as expendable (i.e. training of riders, let alone the horse, is far more extensive and rearing horses takes time). Tanks are bulky and expensive in every sense.

Their pay (maintenance) is, or at least WAS low --most were working class, so they were used to being exploited...those f*#@ing bourgeoisie!

Another reason for using them for attack (aside from being expendable) is their flexibility. Soldiers can storm frotresses (try getting a horse to climb a ladder or get into a siege tower), traverse pretty much any terrain, are difficult to hit (as mentioned in a previous post), can defend against Mounted units using Pikes or guns (as was mentioned), and can outmanouver Tanks especially when in an urban environment --without Infantry support, Tanks are at risk of a well-placed explosive charge by a lone soldier...thus ending their day very quickly.

Really, Infantry are invaluable and form the bulk of most armies for very good reasons.

Now, can Civ3 reproduce the above effects? No. Why? I shall explain:

Are they expendable? It's arguable whether they are too expensive (or not expensive enough) in terms of shields, but really shields just mean time, not money (not including maintenance of improvements). In other words, from the production point of view, there is little difference between building Infantry, Cavalry or a Tank except the time involved in building them (assuming you have the required resources --which I won't get into). So with that in mind, there is little incentive to build infantry, when you can build heavier units that can do the same job and more. Granted, Cavalry has a lower defense, but it can retreat. Tank has greater A/D/M and can also retreat but is Wheeled. That said, you could also say that for the slight drawback of lower defense, Cavalry give you more for your buck and by the time you have Tanks, the world is covered with Roads, so terrain is not as much of a factor (that's taking into account the fact that you can't use Roads in enemy territory --which is unrealistic, but is meant to add "game balance" so I won't get into that) as well as being mostly flat where cities are.

The solution here would be for a cost of gold to be incurred by the builder (i.e. a "Gold Cost" caption in the Editor's Unit window). If this were the case, money as well as time would be a factor. That is to say, Cavalry would cost you more in gold than Infantry or Riflemen, and Tanks...you can probably imagine the immense cost.

Still, a civ with plenty of gold at one time can well afford to build a huge force of heavy units and then keep them long after its 'golden age' is over. What about maintenance?
Tanks and Cavalry cost the same as Infantry to maintain so there's no advantage there. I assume all of you are smart enough to know what the solution to that would be (something that apparentley not occured to the designers of Civ3). [I opened a thread on this in the C3CRequests forum --check it out.] Clearly if this were the case, Cavalry let alone Tanks would be too costly to maintain in large numbers, thus Infantry would be closer to what they are in reality.

Yet, this doesn't really address combat. Aside from being expendable, what could make Infantry better in Civ3?
Two words: Combat Modifiers.
In terms of attack, Infantry could be given a bonus vs. Mounted units or even Tank units (as was mentioned, in reference to Anti-Tank weapons). Infantry could also be given an attack bonus vs. units in Fortresses/Cities --or more accurately, they would only be affected by 50% of the defense bonus offered by the Fort/City. Combine that with Artillary and you have a winning combination...until Machine Guns show up.
In order to balance things out, Infantry would also be at a disadvantage vs. certain units. Take the example of the MG vs. Infantry. Previous to the arrival of the MG (there is no MG in Civ3 as it would be redundant and one unit too many as things are now), Infantry were quite effective on attack as defending Infantry would have far less of an advantage --thus swarming tactics worked...sort of. With rapid fire, such Tactics were a recipe for disaster. So in Civ3 terms, MGs have a defense bonus vs. Infantry (i.e. MG has "100% vs. Foot" flag). Likewise, Pikemen would have a similar defensive capability vs. Cavalry and so on.

The fact that some of you are considering duel-A/D seems to be an indication that you have a problem with the fortified/unfortified A/D relationships (i.e. units shouldn't get creamed by a the same unit just because they aren't fortified thus their defense is less.) Combat modifiers could address this to a degree as Infantry could have an advantage vs. other Infantry, thus they wouldn't be at such a disadvantaeg when unfortified.

In addition to unit combat modifiers I was also thinking in terms of different Terrain bonuses for different units (i.e. Infantry are more effective at defending Cities than Cavalry/Tanks would be --they have the flexibilty needed for street fighting. But that is a somewhat more complicated proposition.

I think Combat Modifiers are the solution to most of the problems raised in this thread, but keep in mind the more economically-oriented solutions that I mentioned above as well.
(Considering how popular Conquests' Amphibious Attack Bonus for the Marine unit is, giving other units similar combat modifier flags seems logical enough --not to mention that ithis would solve some of the problems invloving different unit combat roles.)

[I opened a thread on Combat Modifiers (as well as the other things I mentioned) in the 'C3C Requests' forum, if you're interested. Although I know Conquests is pretty much done, think of it as stuff to consider for the next expansion.]

-------------------------------
BTW, if you're concerned about giving Partisans the '"No-Nationality" flag and having them pillage everything, why don't you just take away it's ability to Pillage? The beauty of Civ3's Editor is that very little is hard-coed; i.e. you can change almost any aspect of the unit. While you're at it, why don't you just take away it's ability to Capture cities, thus ensuring that Partisans will not play a traditional Infantry role --will be limitied to literally "taking to the hills" like real Partisans.

While on the topic, why doesn't the Partisan unit have the "Guerilla Warfare" ability it had in Civ2? Without this it just falls into the 'infantry' catagory (i.e. just another 'substitute' unit).

 

[JWJ]

Well, combat modifiers will be in C3C.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by yoshi
Two words: Combat Modifiers.

Yes yoshi....you are of course quite correct.
Although giving foot units an attack equal to their defence plus dual AI stratagies does help, it is only a partial solution.
'Combat Modifiers' would also be needed to fully simulate the wide range that real life units are capable of.

By the way, "why don't you just take away it's ability to Capture cities"....
....not possible with the PTW editor I'm afraid.
The 'Capture' flag in the PTW editor Unit Special Actions section has nothing to do with the capturing of cities.
(Which is a shame. I would love to give all cavalry units this limitation).

Quoted from the PTW editor help screen.....
Capture (Unit Special Actions)
If selected, the unit has the capability to capture units which are vulnerable to being captured (i.e. king units, princess units, etc.)

 

[yoshi]

Well, combat modifiers will be in C3C.

I assume you are referring to the Amphibious Assault Bonus that has been given to Marines (which I mentioned in my post by the way)?
There has been nothing said about further combat modifying flags so one special ability doesn't even begin to ciover what I wrote in my post. There need to be more --I'm sure you'll agree.

....not possible with the PTW editor I'm afraid.

You mean the took it out of the available Orders? Not that its an order, but I remeber it being in the area of Pillage. Well, whatever, I'm sure you got my point.

'Combat Modifiers' would also be needed to fully simulate the wide range that real life units are capable of.

Definitely. Most units should have some advantage over another. Add depth to combat --something we all want.

 

[Iztvan]

Excelent point, Yoshi.

Infantry is cheap and plentiful in real life, but almost as expensive as Cav/Tanks in Civ3.

Combat modifiers in certain situations, combat modifiers vs certain units, different uppkeeps, etc - all would be great. But we don't have them!

But what can be done? We can make infantry cheaper to build (i.e. faster), but the upkeep is still the same for an infantry unit vs a cavalry or tank unit.

But how about letting a infantry unit represent more men than the Cavaly & tank units? Then the Infantry units could cost the same in upkeep, but represent a larger, more resilient unit.
This would be realistic to, as an infantry regiment was usually at least twice the size of a cavalry regiment.
We can represent this by giving (all? most?) infantry units +1 HP. This would give infantry units extra "staying power" to compensate for not being able to retreat.

What do you guy's think? Perhaps this extra Hp should only be given to "heavy" or "line " infantry (like spearmen, swordsmen, musketeers, infantry) and not to "light" or "irregular" infantry (like archers or guerillas).

 

[yoshi]

But we don't have them!
But what can be done?

The fact that Civ3 doesn't include combat-modifiers (aside from the 'Marine' flag in C3C) is not something that should just be accepted. Most strategy games now include such features. There is no reason why we should expect less --but plenty of reason to expect more-- from CIV.
What can be done? Keep posting on the topic or raise the topic when talking with Firaxis/Atari personelle through the chat. Mention it in other threads whenever a related topic comes up. For a strategy game with no battleview (battles are uncontrolled), Civ3 needs something to beef up combat; to make it more strategic. Combat Modifiers are the simplest solution --next to just having the players attempt to work around something that doesn't exist...which is cruel.

But how about letting a infantry unit represent more men than the Cavaly & tank units? Then the Infantry units could cost the same in upkeep, but represent a larger, more resilient unit.

Be carful not to take CIV's 'one represents a hundred' too literally. Civ3's units are set up the way they are in proportion to all other units --minus the fact that Infantry units may cost too much. A more powerful unit could unbalance the roles of other units thus combat would be distorted. I haven't tried doing this, so your idea may actually be a partial solution. Either way, unit combat relationships will remain just as stale as they are now.

Anyway, the point of the flags is not to make a specific unit more powerful but rather to distiguish between unit roles.

For instance, let's say Infantry are best for taking cities because they ignore 50% of the defense bonus given by cities to units garrisoned in them. As a result, Cavalry/Tank units (note that tanks are still considered to be a form of Cavalry in military terms) are more effective in open combat (on the battlefield). This would probably suffice to make Infantry invaluable in the core game, but what about scenarios?
In WW1, Industrial (trench) warfare would intercept enemy units before they could get anywhere near the enemy's cities (note that a quick-to-build Trenches Tile Improvement, that can be built by Infantry and that only gives defense bonus --and doubles that vs. Bombardment-- to units with the 'Foot' flag would be ideal for industrial warfare; i.e. unit-specific tile improvements). This would make Infantry units ideal for setting up defensive lines (borders), but combined with the presence of MGs (2vsFoot/Mounted) would make attack very difficult. Once Tanks and Bi/Tri-planes come onto the scene, taking out entrenched units becomes a possibility again.
By the time late-industrial (WW2) technology comes around, Infantry still play the same role but are more powerful (MGs stay the same) and now have Anti-Tank units to accompany them, thus Infantry must still be used to escort Tanks 'in the field.' At the same time, 'Sniper' units (special KillFoot/Invisible with very low defense) would be deadly vs. Infantry thus nullifying the Infantry's advantage vs. Cities --where Snipers are present. As a result, Tanks are needed to take cities. Anti-Tank defenses make that difficult, so air-bombardment becomes essential --thus you get modern warfare (combined arms).
As you can see, if you include realistic elements into the game (like combat-modifiers), the game will naturally play out in a similar manner to reality...no hard-coding needed. That is to say, Infantry will play their traditional role without the need for extensive changes to the game.
(Keep in mind that I just thought this up while writing it, so clearly unit combat relationships would need some polishing up...but it should be accurate enough to prove my point.)

 

[dguichar]

Originally posted by dexters
We're back to the realism argument.

If we're all so concerned about realism, we should consider the fact that as total dictators, we live forever, and even in democracies, there are never any elections.

Civ 3 is a game... games can't be realistic, they are just games.

You aren't a total dictator, live forever and hold no elections...

In fact you CONTROL a total dictator (in that we agree, the people can't choose anything... apart from revolt and expect a temple or a cathedral is built), but it'll die and you will CONTROL the next dictator.

In democracies... there ARE elections. You just CONTROL every president.

Keep civilized

David

 

[Aeon221]

Hey you can make it so that other units have the ability to make worker improvements. When i was messing around with the editor to make a WW1 map for me to play i just made all infantry have the build fortress ability, made that take 1 turn, and lessened the bonus to 25% from 50%. It would be something good to add to other scenarios, because fortresses dont really get much use despite being so cool looking in the early levels

and if you want all that other stuff, go play empire earth. that would take way too many units, and besides the game is usually over before that period anyway.

 

[Iztvan]

Originally posted by yoshi

The fact that Civ3 doesn't include combat-modifiers (aside from the 'Marine' flag in C3C) is not something that should just be accepted. Most strategy games now include such features. There is no reason why we should expect less --but plenty of reason to expect more-- from CIV.

True. Especially since Civ2 & SMAC had some kind combat modifiers (didn't they?), it's a bit strange that Civ3 hasn't!
(snip!)

... Civ3 needs something to beef up combat; to make it more strategic. Combat Modifiers are the simplest solution --next to just having the players attempt to work around something that doesn't exist...which is cruel.

Agree. For a game that focuses so much on warfare, it has a very simple combat algoritm. At least a "rock - paper - scissors" model would be needed.
But the ideal would be if we could have modifiers
- vs a certain type of opponent, (fast, foot, armoured, "soft", mounted, skirmisher),
- in certain situations (favoured terrain, across rivers, into cities etc.

Be carful not to take CIV's 'one represents a hundred' too literally. Civ3's units are set up the way they are in proportion to all other units --minus the fact that Infantry units may cost too much. A more powerful unit could unbalance the roles of other units thus combat would be distorted. I haven't tried doing this, so your idea may actually be a partial solution. Either way, unit combat relationships will remain just as stale as they are now.

Oh, i definately don't take 1:100 literaly at all - a Knight unit symbolizes a lot fewer men than a spearmen unit. The number of men in a unit? I don't know, and I don't care... it would depend on map size, tech level, unit type, etc...

Yes, unit balance is a tricky issue. I've noticed that when I've done som modding for myself.

The problem with Infantry in Civ3 today is 2-fold:
1. Not better than Cav/Tank at capturing fortresses, cities & fortified units in mountains and other "infantry-type stuff".
2. Too poor cost:efficiency ratio compared to Cav/Tank.

1. is easily adjusted by modding, 2. is impossible without a more sophisticated combat engine...

Anyway, the point of the flags is not to make a specific unit more powerful but rather to distiguish between unit roles.

Different roles for different trooptypes, and a different "feel" would add greatly to the illusion of the game. For us more experienced players, Civ3 would greatly benefit from this, especially since it's so focused on warfare.
If the rules for governments, religion, science, trade, culture, etc were more complex and sofisticated, then maybe we could do without... Ah, who am i kidding, history without a lot of wars? Silly me!

 

[yoshi]

We're back to the realism argument.

It should be noted that the reason why realism is brought up is because it happens to be the best thing on which to base CIV's rules --aside from the fact that CIVILIZATION implies something that exists in reality thus deviating from it would defeat the purpose of the game.
The fact that Infantry have advantages when street fighting is logical (tanks have a tough time hiding in buildings) and happens to be realistic. But let's say you change that by making it so that Infantry suck when in cities. It won't mean you're wrong since it is just a game, but people playing a game that supposedly mimics the progress of human development on this planet (random maps aside) will be dissapointed because part of the reason for playing is to 'test your skills against some of the most cunning leaders in history' (or whatever it says on the box). So keep that in mind when assuming that the 'realism arguement' is groundless.

At least a "rock - paper - scissors" model would be needed.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Each unit fills a role. Infantry vs. Cities, Tanks vs. Tanks, Cavalry vs. Foot, Pikemen vs. Knights, Archers vs. Foot, Destoryer vs. Submarine, Submarine vs. Battleship and so on.
If Artillary could counter-bombard (see CTP) then, Artillary vs. Artillary. As things are, units repeat themselves (resources/cost aside) and using different ones within the same general type has a negligible deciding effect on combat.

But the ideal would be if we could have modifiers
- vs a certain type of opponent, (fast, foot, armoured, "soft", mounted, skirmisher),
- in certain situations (favoured terrain, across rivers, into cities etc.

"100% vs. Foot" would be the most useful in the case of Infantry.
Combat modifyng terrain is something everyone seems to be interested in. For instance, Forest/Jungle would give an additional 50% bonus to Foot units on those tiles defending against Mounted units. In other words, essentially adding an additional selectable "Foot 50% vs. Mounted" flag in the Terrian window of the Editor.

The number of men in a unit?

I'll clarify what I said about this: CIV is not amount-specific so units are really an abstract concept. For the sake of confusion we refer to an Infantry unit as 'one guy' (i.e. 1vs.1 combat --the proportions are only implied). CIV is genius in that way because it allows the game to be proprtional to the map scale without the need for extensive chnages to unit stats.

1. is easily adjusted by modding, 2. is impossible without a more sophisticated combat engine...

I assume you mean 1. is 2. and viceerversa...
2. is right and I don't know what the big deal is --nevertheless people have a right to expect the game to be properly balanced without having to do it themselves (especially considering that CIv3's designers have put so much emphasis on how 'well balanced' the game is.
1. is debatable. If it's just a question of combat-modifying flags, then it shouldn't be to difficult to implement --the 'Amphibious Assault' flag in Conquests already indicates that the groundwork has already been done. Now it should just be a matter of adding more.

BTW, giving units other non-combat-related abilities would further distinguish between unit roles. Personally, one of the first modifications I made to Civ3's rules was to give the Roman 'Legionary' unit the ability to build fortresses. It kind of unbalanced things a bit as there was no incentive to upgrade them since they could still serve that worker role...but what the hell. Romans rule(d)!

I opened a thread specifically on Combat Modifiers in the 'C3C Requests' forum. If you're interested see:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63824

 

[Aeon221]

Each unit fills a role. Infantry vs. Cities, Tanks vs. Tanks, Cavalry vs. Foot, Pikemen vs. Knights, Archers vs. Foot, Destoryer vs. Submarine, Submarine vs. Battleship and so on.

Umm Tanks v. Tanks? And thats it? The ultimate ground force, capable of totally dominating almost any combat arena, and if not dominating then siginificantly altering the tactics of any force opposing them? Tanks. And you have them only against themselves? That is definitely a primary reason for terrain based modifiers. Why dont they simply sneak over to the Panzer General Code (the original one that looks like a total combat Civ)
and "borrow" it. They could do a lot with that. AND if it is possible in a game made in the mid 90s why not now? There is NO WAY that that would require a major change in the combat engine. They already have the terrain based defense bonuses; with MINOR alterations they would be done and we would all be happy.

 

[player1 fanatic]

TOW vs Tanks

 

[yoshi]

Umm Tanks v. Tanks? And thats it? The ultimate ground force, capable of totally dominating almost any combat arena, and if not dominating then siginificantly altering the tactics of any force opposing them?

Tanks don't need any flags. They are powerful enough as they are. Anti-Tank Infantry would make it necessary for Infantry to accompany Tanks, but aside from that the only thing that can take a Tank is another Tank. More advanced Airpower eventually nullifies the Tanks effectivenes in the field. In reailty, Tanks had their 'goden age' during WW2. Now they are more of a hinderance as they can be destroyed by TOWs and Aircraft of various types, and at the same time cost a lot to maintain --granted, that isn't a problem in Civ3... Attack Helicopters are the Tank's main adversary though --Infantry have to get close in order to take out Tanks. There aren't any in Civ3 because they would just be another Fighter.... (You can find a thread on Air Attack Missions in the 'C3C Request' forum.)

Why don't they simply sneak over to the Panzer General Code (the original one that looks like a total combat Civ)

I'm only guessing, but maybe it's because that would be illegal?

That is definitely a primary reason for terrain based modifiers.

I'm not clear on the exact relationship between Tanks and terrain but I agree that variable combat-modifying terrain should be a factor --this is especially the case for Infantry which depend the most on terrain.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by yoshi
I'm not clear on the exact relationship between Tanks and terrain but I agree that variable combat-modifying terrain should be a factor --this is especially the case for Infantry which depend the most on terrain.

First, I will say that I really wish for the combat modifiers discussed here, but I think unit vs unit modifiers and unit vs terrain modifiers are almost equally important.
A tank attacking infantry in open ground should win most of the time, but attacking infantry in a city would fail. This cannot be accomplished by unit vs unit modifiers alone, but need terrain modifers.
Example of terrain modifiers suitable here could be:
* Infantry defending in city: 1.5 * D
* Infantry attacking a city: 1 * A (no modifier)
* Tanks defending in city: 0.75 * D
* Tanks attacking a city: 0.5 * A

* Tanks defending in plains: 1.5 *A
* Tanks attacking in plains: 1.5 * A

Thos numbers are only an example, but should show what I mean:
This will for example mean that a tank attacking an inf in a city will see a tank with halved A vs an inf with 50% higher D, thus quite deadly for the tank, as it should be.
However, if the tank attacks the inf in plains, the tank will have 50% higher A than normal, thus quite deadly for the inf.

This is how it should be IMHO, and would force the player to use some sensible combined arms tactics.

 

[Gangor]

A combination of measures would be my suggestion:

Combat modifiers (against specific units, and on specific terrain)

for example, anti-tank guns are better against tanks, and cavalry are less effective in forests or cities.

Routing.

Retreating could simply be changed so that all units can flee if they are facing a unit with equal or less movement points. This would have a couple of effects:

- It would be difficult to gain a complete victory with infantry alone - cavalry would be needed to mop up those units routed by the infantry.

- Cavalry would be more resiliant (it would retreat from a losing battle with other cavalry)

- Conscripts are very likely to flee (just like RL )

Changes to Stats

Infantry need to be better on the attack, IMO