Balancing Infantry and Armor in an RTS

And the way I see it, when fighting the computer at least, it should always be feasible to do something like that and just watch the mayhem. Not always the most efficient means of victory, but one none the less.

Incidentally, unit caps (not counting limiting to just one of hero or epic or what have you units) piss me off as a false restriction on gameplay.

I mean Sins has an excuse for that one as if everyone is rolling with 2000+ (you can mod the maximum fleet size) fleet points of ships, the game is going to get bogged way the fuck down.

edited 26th Jan '12 4:14:05 PM by Balmung

Indeed.

Meh, I'm okay with unit caps.

I personally like a more micro-intensive game. Makes me feel more in the battles. A bit overwhelmign at times, but more fun.

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

Infantry are smaller. This means they can go places vehicles can't, and hide better. Not many games get the second part correct, but until relatively recently (the early eighties or late seventies) armored vehicles had a really hard time seeing things with the hatches closed. Even today it's possible to get very close to an infantry position in a tank and not see them. Any time you're within fifty meters of an armed enemy and don't know he's there you're in trouble.

That they accurately simulated this (and the resulting stumbling into a concealed infantry position and losing several vehicles in the process) is one of the reason I consider the old turn-based Steel Panthers games better than most modern RTS. In practical terms, infantry in sufficient cover, such as concealed entrenchments or a building, should be able to allow enemy armor to waltz right up to them, with detection only possible if they fire or at very short ranges.

Nous restons ici.

One of things I wish more games would do is to have integrated tactic AI systems. Like, I could put a couple infantry squads in a building and say "defend area" or "lay ambush" and they'd actually do something intelligent rather than just become a giant turret.

The main thing that I wish more RTS systems did was that armor catching an infantry platoon in the open on flat ground should be a curb stomp. Seriously, if nobody gets off a lucky RPG, a tank should be able to just roll over the infantry. Infantry should have the advantage in urban combat, while armor should have it in open.

That, and I wish more of them did artillery better. I can't shake the feeling that infantry would be much more formidable if they could call in arty strikes without requiring massive micro.

Fight smart, not fair.

Only RTS I really know is Rise of Nations, and that one just kind of bugs me for its balance. They have their unit balances and stick with them, no matter how little sense it makes given the actual units. For instance, timber heavy ships still beat ironclad light ships, no matter how big a gamebreaker ironcladding is in real life; heavy infantry is going to be strong against armor, weak against infantry, so you have the rather ridiculous scene of direct hits with rockets doing less damage to infantry than battle rifles; artillery is going to be weak against infantry, so it's basically totally nerfed as regards mobile war. Bleah.

Shinigan (Naruto fanfic)

That's usually accomplished by giving arty huge range, but poor sight range so that the infantry can spot for the arty. It's just that you have to build your own artillery. Okay, and often, you have to call in the strike manually, but, hey, that's what ctrl-groups are for, right?

That's something that certain real-time wargames like the Achtung Panzer series does well. If you give a defend order in a section of village, the individual squad members will actually seek and take positions in any available nearby cover.

It'd be really neat if you could also give them a "fortify" command.

Agreed, I just wish more games would do decent sized artillery ranges, rather than slightly more than your tanks. One of the reasons I love Warzone2100, the artillery has massive range compared to everything else, and actually responds to targeting intel.

The only other one I can remember doing that was Tiberium... Wars? Where you could have your Juggernauts do this low speed target.

Hm, another thought occurs, what if the game had ammunition restrictions. Like, let's say you have your barracks/warfactory right? And it has a small stockpile of ammo, which can be sent to your infantry units when they run out of their own carried ammo (no reload nerfing) by keeping track of it. So, one viable strat would be to surround a tank/infantry, run them out of ammo, and just intercept the ammo train.

Fight smart, not fair.

Well, in Company Of Heroes, infantry squads automatically seek the best cover possible when they engage enemy troops or are fired upon. That's a good first step.

RE Ammo: That's an excellent idea. In fact, I can see how this can be used to realistically balance out tanks vs. infantry squads, since the latter have a much easier time restocking their ammo and supplies than the former, and thus have more flexibility. Can tanks even restock in the field IRL?

edited 27th Jan '12 3:40:03 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

True. Dumb AI movement is always a problem.

Edit: tanks can restock their coaxial or pintel (sp?) mounted weapons since they're nearly identical to infantry weapons and can be done by dropping on a new box and feeding the belt in. The cannons, not so much (although, I'm positive they can be rearmed given the rounds). But it would certainly be interesting if you were required to take that into account.

edited 27th Jan '12 3:44:00 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

I've done this. That and made units have much longer range in general in my mod. For instance base Normal range in my Yuri's Revenge mod is 12 cells. (That's bigger than the screen is wide on lower resolutions like 640 x 480 or 800 x 600.) Nothing is shorter save the one suicide unit (the Demo Truck from the stock game) I left in for shits and giggles. A number of units have Extended range totaling 16 cells. All artillery types have a range of Long or better which translates to a range of 24-40 cells and that's non-ship artillery. Ships themselves have ranges up to 60 cells for one ship or 76 cells for the aircraft carrier (the 76 accounts for the fact the fighters have range too. Meaning the fighters fire when they are a maximum of 60 cells away from the ship.)

The end result is infantry in the open and structures are very vulnerable to massed concentrated artillery (which can freely engage on their own accord, none of this have to babysit them) and it can even put the hurt on some forms of armor. Its counter is a large armor formation or counter battery fire from ships or your own artillery (the same as in real life). Alternative counters include aircraft but that doesn't work entirely for 2 artillery style units since they double as mobile SAM's too.

The problem with breaking Easy Logistics in RTS is it breaks the fun. Ammunition can only be done right if it is momentary stuff like an infantryman needs to change mags for his rifle or change belts on a machine gun or a vehicle needs to reload its guns (say an anti-air truck needs to reload the belts on its AA machine guns). Having them completely run out of ammo (and fuel if you go this route) and needing them to pull back or you run trucks out to them basically destroys the fun and the pacing. (Note: Traditional aircraft are exempt from this problem since they've been doing that for over 15 years in RTS games.)

Remember, Easy Logistics in RTS is one of those Acceptable Breaks from Reality that is sort of a Required Trope.

edited 27th Jan '12 4:17:29 AM by MajorTom

I'm thinking more of an ammo truck that sort of "appears" and trundles up to the vehicle to rearm it. So, you could, theoretically, engage in ammo depletion as a method of defeating a tank by simply killing the rearm vehicle. I don't see why it would be any different than a raid on the gatherer units crippling your economy. It would also have the benefit of allowing very fast burst combat since all the fighting takes place before you run out of ammo.

Fight smart, not fair.

Tanks are actually much less likely to run out of ammo than infantry, the reason being disgustingly simple: they fire it much, much slower, and usually only at discrete targets.

Depending on your time period in fact it's likely your infantry will run out of ammo because the damn stuff is heavy and bulky. It wasn't until the introduction of 5.56mm rifles that it really became possible for infantry to physically carry enough ammo that running out stopped being a concern.

Nous restons ici.

There's actually quite a big difference. A harassment attack doesn't really get too much instant gratification. The point of harassment is two big things:

• Slow economic functions and resource gathering
• Distract your opponent and tax their micro

Attacking a supply vehicle, on the other hand, has immediate gratification- you're probably going to win if you can rob your opponent of supplies. But there's not much long-term significance.

edited 27th Jan '12 6:48:14 AM by MetaSkipper

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

I always figured we were discussing a 20 Minutes into the Future scenario. Or one with Magitech otherwise.

Fight smart, not fair.

^ Well even if we did historical RTS you'd have to think Easy Logistics for the sake of fun. There are almost no recorded instances of a position or unit losing the battle because an airstrike or other attack killed a couple supply trucks headed for them.

The point isn't necessarily to try and mimic historicalness, it's to try and add a new mechanic to see how it would work out.

Fight smart, not fair.

And actual logistics trains have been tried before. Given none of those games were the same kind of blockbuster sales Easy Logistics games like Starcraft and Command and Conquer were, it isn't a good mechanic.

edited 28th Jan '12 5:49:25 AM by MajorTom

Can you name them? I can't help the feeling that most individual mechanics don't get tested on their own and have to depend on the game itself doing well.

Fight smart, not fair.

Earth2150 to name one. Ammunition is exactly how you proposed more or less.

Rise Of Nations too. Hearts Of Iron to name another.

edited 28th Jan '12 6:11:21 AM by MajorTom

Rise of Nations hardly has a logistics train; you just have to make a couple of supply trucks and send them along with any armies you put into foreign territory. There's no sort of supply line at all, and while theoretically you could get an advantage by targeting the supply trucks first, no one ever does because attrition is more visually alarming than actually significant.

Shinigan (Naruto fanfic)

Well, as the chess saying goes "The threat is worse than the execution."

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

^ Indeed. Additionally there have been quite a few scenarios in historical war where a logistics loss was a case of "We need to compensate for that..." and thus a non-issue to the outcome of a battle or campaign. There have been quite a few more where attrition of combatants has forced the loss of a battle or firefight (or even campaign in the case of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal) and that's when the side being defeated had significant logistical capabilities or advantages at the time.

Basically the gist of the whole attrition vs logistics thing is, hurting for bullets and gas might leave you limited in capabilities but having your actual shooters knocked out is the greater loss. No war was ever won on just keeping the supply lines going, you had to have a brain when the artillery was incoming and supply lines did nothing for that.

Logistics are only interesting at the strategic scale. At a tactical level, where the objective is to neutralize the enemy in a timely manner, hard-kill is always preferable to soft-kill because it's quicker.

(At the strategic scale, soft-kill is usually preferred because it takes less force to accomplish.)

edited 28th Jan '12 9:02:25 PM by Night

Nous restons ici.