Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Not entering debate.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I think the Bestway games do this the best... way, out of any RTS game.

As mentioned the infantry will actually disable tanks.  They can take out the treads with anti infantry grenades, they can take out the rest with anti tank weapons.  The latest one, Men of War, is even more realistic because the tanks almost never blow sky high, they'll just be disabled permanently with enough damage and then all you can do with them is salvage their fuel and ammunition.

[Aqizzar]

Re: Cannons vs. Infantry.  I think the logic behind this is that it should take a lot of shots from a tank to kill a rifleman, because realistically, unless you peg him square with it, an armor-piercing round doesn't do anything.  Why it gets wacky is that only Total Annihilation and Myth have ever bothered giving projectiles actual physics, instead of taking the easy route just making every shot hit and giving every unit an unreasonably large "hit-point" reserve.

Total Annihilation also treated infantry better by actually making the terrain a serious consideration.  Infantry were overpriced and underpowered for stand-up fights, but rocked in rough terrain where tanks couldn't go.  Most RTSs just give terrain a few flat height levels and maybe some rare movement modifiers and call it a day.

I 'm trying to think of games that didn't even bother with infantry.  Warzone 2100 comes to mind, but it actually had infantry as the high-tech units, despite being as useless as any other game.  The only place I can think of ground-war centric RTS truly ignoring infantry is a big C&C3 total conversion, based on a near-future war in Israel, where the developers outright said that infantry in RTSs is basically a nostalgic force of habit, and doesn't serve any real purpose.  I still chalk it up to incomplete design, but unless you want a game detailed enough to actually train officers with, infantry are going to be pretty useless.

I just realized that this entire debate should be qualified as only applying to RTS that claim to model realistic warfare.  A game like Starcraft where infantry are as essential as anything is exempted, as it's thematic model is closer to an arcade game than a true simulation.

[Neonivek]

In the Game Z Tanks are truely deadly!

They kill groups of infantry with single shots and rarely do non-explosive based units destroy them. The only times anti-tanks (which there is one one... with exception to units with grenades) is when they shoot out the driver. Mind you even Anti-tanks get decimated by tanks, however they are far more likely to get one or two shots out.
-I never seen the Heavy Tank in the game... though I assume it can potentially carve a path to your base.

Some units such as Laser and Plasma units have HIGH intelligence, so they can actually dodge tanks.

The reason however that you don't just build tanks is that the game's currency is build time. You really can't win building nothing but tanks because your army will be too small and the enemies will easily out manuver you.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

That's another thing about the Bestway games.  They actually differentiate between AP and HE rounds.  AP rounds will kill a soldier in one hit, only if it's a direct hit.  HE rounds will kill anyone near them and injure those farther away, as well as being better for destroying unarmored vehicles.

[Strife26]

Tanks can be turned into gaint shotguns in real life you know, this should be in a game. I want to use a 120 mm fletchette cannon!

[Jreengus]

I quite liked the way Dawn of War handled tanks v infantry. You had 2 separate pop caps one for infantry and one for tanks, and of course tanks can't capture strategic points which provide you with resource.

[Alexhans]

You should really play one of the close combat games, especially close combat 5. It has the best implementation of tanks vs infantery. Mainly because infantery can easily hide in vegetation and ambush tanks. They are still very usefull to give support from a distance with heavy cannon fire, but one hit from an AT squad and they are toast, they often miss but when they hit you get that real satisfaction of seeing the enemy tank explode

I only played CC 1 & 2 but you're damned right! what a great game!  The pinned down factor.  The morals.   Few games have this. The only downside is that defense missions are pretty easy.  in CC infantry has some grenades that can toss at tanks and luckyly break them.

In the Game Z Tanks are truely deadly!

They kill groups of infantry with single shots and rarely do non-explosive based units destroy them. The only times anti-tanks (which there is one one... with exception to units with grenades) is when they shoot out the driver. Mind you even Anti-tanks get decimated by tanks, however they are far more likely to get one or two shots out.
-I never seen the Heavy Tank in the game... though I assume it can potentially carve a path to your base.

Some units such as Laser and Plasma units have HIGH intelligence, so they can actually dodge tanks.

The reason however that you don't just build tanks is that the game's currency is build time. You really can't win building nothing but tanks because your army will be too small and the enemies will easily out manuver you.

Z!!! Another nice game.  So many memories! 
 

I like the way Shogun handled troop movement as a whole unit.  I't would be cool to see something like that with guns, with much more variety of course, Its not the same kind of fight.   Make them get them get cover and act as a squad.

[Kagus]

Dawn of War and Company of Heroes both have squad-based infantry units.  You give commands to the squad as a whole, rather than individual units.

However, while this is better, it's still not great.  And I don't feel that machine-only games are "fixing" the infantry problem, they're just avoiding it because they don't know how to make it work.

Dawn of War (and CoH, since it used a similar system) did indeed allow for infantry units later into the game.  The difference is that in Dawn of War, there were units classed as "infantry" who could easily take on most tanks in a head-on fight.  Even the more standard units had such high durability that they could withstand a heavy amount of vehicle fire.

CoH, on the other hand, tried to model realistic infantry and tanks.  Since they didn't provide all the tactical advantages of infantry (they were better about it, but still not quite there), the fleshy footsoldiers were quickly outclassed by tanks.  Infantry are only used in the early game, as flag-grabbers and rush units.  Later, it's the vehicles who take over, with the only footmen being engineers.  Maybe some mortar teams, if they're into that.

Actually I like the idea of automated infantry, but I feel we need it for all units. The classic RTS is hugely unrealistic in that on one hand you seem to command the whole battle, but on the other you have to command all your individual troops. In real life there would be 2 levels of command between those things, but in the game- it's all you.

This is also one of my big beefs with RTS games, and sort of what I'm getting at with the automated infantry.  However, I don't know how many people would play a combat-based RTS where you didn't get to command the troops directly.  That's why I left in the option of being able to issue direct orders to the heavy armor and support units.

A Majesty-like system might work, but Majesty was also a lot about maintaining your infrastructure.  For a modern war game, I'm unsure as to how you could accomplish an involved gaming experience without having to command the troops.  I don't know what all sort of management would be involved with military bases.

It could be pulled off, and thus push the focus even more into the strategic planning field, since you'd be working out the best place for another base or what direction you should push production into, rather than telling that tank to start backing up and switch targets to the heavily damaged vehicle that just showed up, rather than the enemy tank it was previously plugging away at.

Hmm...  Might have to think about that a bit.

[Dwarf]

Blitzkrieg did a good job IMO. Well prepared infantry can take on on tanks, if properly equipped.

[Sowelu]

Haven't played CC games past 3, but 3 is one of my favorite games EVER.  The CC4 demo didn't impress me much.

One big tanks > infantry thing is that infantry is often very slow.  In fast games with big maps, they just can't keep up.  Of course in CC games...well, it's still an issue, but it's not as much of an issue.  The matches are long.  If you push tanks too fast, they get picked off.  You really have to move infantry in ahead of tanks a lot of time if you think there's AT in the area.

(Always tons of fun if your AT team can hide really well, so the enemy moves right past them...then you shoot their tank in the rear armor...)

[Ivefan]

Men of War, The latest in a similar game series, has quite interessting combat overall.
All bullets trajectory is calculated individually and can ricochet.
The armored vehicles have multiple parts that can break indepentently and if a man can get close enough to accurately lob a AV grenade it will probably be destroyed.
It's just a matter of distance.
Infantry caught in the open will be mowed down with a MG or shelled with HE projectiles
I really enjoyed using a high calibre artillery with AP shells(out of HE), shooting through a building at the infantry taking cover there.
Though it might have had been more fun blowing the building up with HE shells.

[Neonivek]

A Majesty-like system might work, but Majesty was also a lot about maintaining your infrastructure

Well also using your Infrastructure to influence your units.

You didn't build Guard Towers and Inns just to help your heros (in fact in the late game they do little) your doing it to influence where your heros go on the map. (I believe only 2-3 heros in the game use Guard Towers... and 2 of them are the absolute last unit you get)

[Kagus]

Yes, but how does that apply to a modern war simulator?  You could potentially build a tower out in the boondocks with barbed wire around it and shiny steel grating, but what would be the point?  A place to send all those guys who lost the poker bet and had to take a shift out at "Ol' Obscure"?

Supply bunkers could potentially serve as restocking points for soldiers, I suppose...  Still a bit odd to just place it in the middle of a contested zone just for the heck of it.


It's just that Majesty didn't put all of its focus into full-scale combat.  I'm trying to figure out how a "free will" unit system would work for a combat game.  Preferably something that doesn't require the military to build oil rigs and steel refineries so that they can build a man.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Units in the army don't have free will. They follow orders, otherwise it's a militia, not an army.

In that sense, a Majestic RTS about modern combat (or even WW2 combat) would include Officers that would rally the troops into controllable chunks. Soldiers without control either return to the HQ or press ahead to the mission flag. You wouldn't be giving move orders to separate regiments, you would be setting a flag out in the open, and set which controlled collections of cannon fodder you would like to see at this flag. Once they all assemble, you set them a mission, consisting of one or several flags that the units must reach or hold - and without your personal interference, too.