Skip to Content

How to deal with infantry?

19 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

Just to put you in context, I am looking for a technology level around 1960-1970, so motorised infantry is not the norm yet, but APC (Armored Personel Carrier) does exists. I have multiple options available, my objective is more about making interesting gameplay than historically accurate combat.

The core mechanic of my game is that you can only move 3 units per turn. That gives player a hard choice on which unit they should move, and long term positionning becomes much more important. The objective is to create a chess like feeling, where moving a unit could have 2 purpose (Threaten/attack and defend and area).

The problem with infantry is that it moves very slowly compared to other vehicles (at least half the speed). And since you only have 3 movements per turn, there will be little reason to move infantry unless that is the only thing you have left. So I am trying to see how I could fix this.

Method A: Remove infantry

Well, if the technology level was 20 years later, maybe yes, but that is currently not the case. Else, I like the idea of having 2 type of target for weapons (vehicle and infantry). This way a tank might be very efficient against vehicle, but that that good vs infantry as it needs to use it's machine gun.

Method B: Remove APC

APC can move as fast as vehicle and capture locations but with 2 actions (move or capture), while infantry move slower but only need 1 action ( move and capture). But still, infantry is too slow to make it a real benefit. So a solution could be to remove APC, so that infantry is the only way to capture location.

But I could still get the syndrome where all vehicle fight first, and when the battle field is almost empty the infantry start moving. Think of it like a chess game, where the pawns started behind the other pieces.

Method C: Free infantry movement

Under this method, every turn, all infantry units can move for free unless they try to attack or capture a location. Now the idea behind this mechanism is that it creates a kind of clock. At some point in the game the infantry will reach it's destination, and the vehicles are there to support the infantry. It will also avoid early all out attack if the infantry is not in range to do something. Players are more likely to follow their troops. Since free movements are on a phase of their own, it will not be very complicated to keep track of movement. I could also remove APC they are still too much advantageous.

What are your thoughts, do you prefer a method over another? Do you have other solutions?

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
You might conceive of foot

You might conceive of foot infantry as the experts at digging in and defending, as opposed to the APC guys who are better as assault troops.

So keep infantry slow, but make them so good at defence that they are worth having to bring up the rear to occupy a space once the APC units have done their work.

It might be quite realistic. Mechanised units, although capable of going far and fast, might often prefer to hold back and not get too far ahead of their fellow infantry, who will be needed to occupy the ground once the skirmish is (hopefully) won.

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
As I was reading I was

As I was reading I was thinking about a rapid transit (non-armored PC) option for the infantry. They can move at "regular speed" essentially by being loaded up in buses (or whatever), but then they can't do anything else that turn. Obviously depends on what else they could normally do that turn, in your game :)

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Making infantry more

Making infantry more defensive is a solution, but sometimes you'll want to defend other places than your starting position. So you need to be able to move further away. You can also get the all out attack syndrome with only infantry left.

Transportation is a solution, using truck or helicopter. Due to the little number of action, I thought of removing any transportation vehicle. But if an infantry movement could be combined with transport movement or transports are abstracted (they are not on the map).

For example, if an infantry is nearby an airport, it could jump a large distance (using hellicopter, planes, etc). Or an infantry could jump from a city to another within a certain distance if they are under their control (they use truck).

That could incite the control of cities because it clears you a path to send infantry.

That could be an interesting option.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I also had the idea that

I also had the idea that infantry could have 2 status: Carried or Deployed. It could become carried when it start moving from a city, but when in carried mode, it cannot attack and it's vulnerable, but faster. Then when it deploys, the truck dissapear, and they now become active infantry. Air transportation would require paratroopers.

That is another option I could test.

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
larienna wrote:For example,

larienna wrote:
For example, if an infantry is nearby an airport, it could jump a large distance (using hellicopter, planes, etc). Or an infantry could jump from a city to another within a certain distance if they are under their control (they use truck).

That could incite the control of cities because it clears you a path to send infantry.

That could be an interesting option.


I like this one, because it adds differentiation between areas of the map, and therefore gives more opportunity for strategy.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I like this one...

larienna wrote:
I also had the idea that infantry could have 2 status: Carried or Deployed. It could become carried when it start moving from a city, but when in carried mode, it cannot attack and it's vulnerable, but faster. Then when it deploys, the truck dissapear, and they now become active infantry. Air transportation would require paratroopers.

That is another option I could test.

It's kind of what I had in mind too... Like something like "Infantry has a *transportation* or Travel Mode" which means they are in a jeep until they decide to leave the jeep in order to combat enemy forces. Since the jeep is behind the front lines, you could place a "token" marker to specify WHERE the infantry was deployed... This way once the battle is done (if victorious or the opponent retreats)... The infantry can make it back to the point where their "jeep" is and continue forwards until another deployment is necessary...

Cool stuff!

Note: The "jeep" itself has NO ATTACK capabilities. Only transportation capabilities which allow deployment of Infantry to be more how shall I put it? Hmm... More "optimal" movement/deployment.

evansmind244
evansmind244's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2015
Combat 1960-1970

No Knowledge of these types of games, but very high knowledge of actual military tactics, troop movements, combat, weapons etc...

Incorporate Helicopters, Infantry and Special Forces. Each of those assets are not limited by roads. So where an ACP must travel SLOW, dangerous roads.... infantry units can move in straight lines over mountains, swamps etc...in the same amount of time an ACP could go all the way around a mountain, and a Helicopter can drop off a Special Forces unit in 1/2 the time of both but Special Forces units are small in number.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I think that's another good idea

@Evan's idea of "Special Forces" could be cool too... Normal Infantry riding around in "Jeeps" and "Special Forces" being delivered by Helicopters... I know you mentioned Planes. I think that would be unpractical because once you leap off the Plane... There is no way getting back on.

But Helicopter and Jeep offer two types of distinct units. "Special Forces" could also be "Commandos" (if you prefer that term better). But similarly your Commandos can *call* the Helicopter when they're ready to board. And since they are very specialized units ... they could be like "Mine Layer" (Anti-Tank or vehicle) or "Sniper" (Mountain-Top Cover), etc.

Definitely a good idea to have "different" types of Infantry Units to add a bit more "flavor" to the ground forces IMHO.

Cheers!

evansmind244
evansmind244's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2015
Threaten/Attack/Defend/Intel

Threaten/Attack/Defend/Intel): Special forces can gather INTEL.

-Special Forces (SF) units may not be able to be deployed each turn because you would have very limited supply.
-SF units can't attack a dug in Infantry unit.
-Infantry units could smash SF units when they catch them.
-SF units can ambush or disable APC's, possibly even Helicopters with enough INTEL.
-SF units can be deployed as spies to gather INTEL. Or more realistically SF units build networks of local's that spy for them. Example: SF unit deploys by Helicopter to a village near the enemy to gather INTEL. The longer the unit is able to remain in the village un-attacked the more INTEL is gathered.
-You could add villages on the map where units could gather INTEL.
-INTEL could be used to deploy more than 3 units per turn
-INTEL could be used to allow APC's, Infantry or SF units to mover a greater distance for that turn.
-INTEL could give better odds/defence against an imminent attack.
-Enough INTEL could be used to blow up enemy Helicopters or ambush a SF Unit.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
The video game Dai Senryaku

The video game Dai Senryaku had 3 types of troops: INfantry, paratroopers, and special forces. Each gained additional dropping capabilities. The special forces can be dropped from any vehicle available at any height.

I thought of maybe having infantry and paratrooper, one using land and the other using air transportation. But on another forum, a person said that paratroopers were outdated after world war 2.

Else the auto carrying capabilities gives similar results as using only APC and assault helicopters. The difference, is that those are vehicles and therefore weapons will use vehicle as it's target instead of infantry. So I loose that dual unit category.

The idea that infantry could be used for defensive purpose only could be a solution. I would need to use cities and airports as a "sling shot" to move further away. Infantry would sling shot by land, paratrooper by air, but they are much less equipped than ground infantry.

Else I am reconsidering moving all infantry each turn. Much easier to handle, I don't need additional tokens.

I could give try to all those suggestions and see what ends up being the best. City slingshot looks interesting because it gives a second use to cities beside repair. There is no resupplying, and city control does not affect unit production like in the video games I played.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Infantry can be the most

Infantry can be the most versatile units.
All the options you had so far are valid ones. And all could be used at the same time.

It is true that infantry are slow.

The benefits that they can have, seen so far, so I might be repeating a lot:
-Speed them up by transport. Any will do. Boats, APC's, Helicopters, Planes, Trucks, certain tanks.
-They can move through harder terrain. Smaller places too. Forest, mountain, water (seals). How about through enemy structures as well? Reaching a place where vehicles cannot reach.
-Hiding in certain terrain. Harder for the enemy to spot them. That in combination with moving through a forest. Man, an enemy base in a forest is doomed!
-Let them build simple stuff in enemy territory. Digging in, assembling a somewhat heavier mortar carried by multiple infantry. Placing high explosives and detonating them from a distance. Tunnels, are fun to build if the map has the starting location close to the target, but a loooong way around on the map.

But infantry often is used as fodder/distraction. Do you have any vehicle that is just as slow as infantry? But very strong in armor? A steam roll is best supported by fodder. If a mission requires you to have heavy units. A bit of infantry (+20%) might make the army twice as strong (+100%).

I suspect you are not really going to make missions. But more of a 1v1 battle. If there are missions, some of them could be designed in such a way that infantry are the best solution.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
It will be a 1v1 game, but

It will be a 1v1 game, but there could be some scenario settings. And it could be possible to combine 2 games for a 2v2 battle using 2 maps.

Some of the suggestions you mentioned are possible or are already available:

- Better defense: Cannot be instantly killed
- better cover: Can be hidden in all terrain,
- Infiltration: I could make them avoid zone of control

That's is OK, the problem is that those things are efficient when they are in a good position. That requires movement, and in my game movement is restrained, so it's problematic for the infantry to get in a good position.

But with slingshot transportation, that could be a solution, spending actions to position your infantry. Then they remain there to defend. The goal is to mobilize infantry with has many actions as vehicles even if they are slower.

- Airport will have longer range than cities
- Air drop will be available to paratrooper
- Infantry would have access to city to city/airport OR airport to airport movement. Else city to any place using ground movement will remain possible.
- Paratrooper will have less equipment than infantry.

Dai senryaku fusionned infantry with their APC and Assault helicopter unit. Using that mechanics, makes infantry become vehicle target. Which is a problem because I don't have soldier targets anymore. If I remove APC and AS and use transportation, infantry remains targetable as soldiers instead of vehicle.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Somehow I am thinking here

Somehow I am thinking here that you really need a crowed/labyrinth terrain. Meaning that infantry would be the fastest unit on that map.

OR

Move 2 squads of infantry for each vehicle. I got for example, that moving 6 light infantry costs just as much as moving 1 tank.

In a sense, if I translate your game to spending action points. Then having 6 AP would mean that moving 1 infantry squad costs 1 AP and moving 1 vehicle costs 2 AP. Something along that road.

Sure, they are slower, but you may move twice as much.
And maybe, just maybe, how about having 1 infantry squad being able to move twice? The second move could be along the lines of 2 AP.

Just some idea's pulled from my game. I am sure you figure something out.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Hmm! Moving 2 infantry unit

Hmm! Moving 2 infantry unit per action point is also an interesting idea. One problems is that if you move 6 infantry you might forget which unit has moved which was one of the advantage of move 3 units.

Else if you only have 1 infantry unit, you might not move it.

I am still thinking about transportation as a solution, it might be the first I tests. The idea is that it would make infantry like piece that can move like a bishop, rook or even queen, but that can only capture like a king. It's not awesomely powerful, but well positioned it can be very helpful.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Maybe something simpler

I always thought of infantry as knights. Jumping over other units to do their job.

What about this rule?

For each infantry accompanied by a vehicle. The movement is x2. Or equal to that vehicle.

You could add a transport number to vehicles too. Giving most just 1. But true transport 3 or even 5.

There is no tracking needed here of the actions etc. Just a comparison.

Edit:
Wait, can infantry be in the same region as vehicles? Or is it a 1 unit per square/hexagon type of game?
In that case, if an adjacent vehicle is present. You get that bonus move.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Many years ago I thought of

Many years ago I thought of combining infantry with other units. We see it often that Infantry are riding on the top of vehicles.

But for now, I'll keep 1 units per hex except for heights. So for example, the same space can contain a tank, an helicopter and an attack plane because they are at different height.

bottercot
bottercot's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/06/2018
Just dropping in a suggestion

Just dropping in a suggestion with no context as to what has already been discussed...
1. What if you had a "General" unit that could order 3 or so Infantry within a certain number of spaces?
2. Do you have any sort of terrain in this game? Because a main advantage of Infantry historically is that they are much more mobile in terms of getting over difficult terrain. If you had some sort of movement penalty for vehicles going through rough terrain that Infantry did not have, that could increase their appeal as mobile in a different way. In addition, you could give Infantry a defense bonus in rough terrain that vehicles wouldn't have.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
hi. i just had a quick look

hi. i just had a quick look so i might be repeating another suggestion but...
in the first post you said you wanted a chess feel (meaning your infantry will act like pawns).when i taught my nephew to play i explained all the pieces like warriors and war machines. the knights were ninjas, the rooks tanks, the bishops jets. but the pawn is the most dangerous piece ( i think i called them zombies). far from being weak the collective power of pawns makes them more powerful than a queen. they move slowly but fight to the death for there fellow pieces. they can block paths and maneuver like no other pieces and if all else fails they can be promoted to the upper ranks.
make your infantry like the noble pawn and you should be ok.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:1. What if you had a

Quote:
1. What if you had a "General" unit that could order 3 or so Infantry within a certain number of spaces?

There will be commanding units, I'll use NES conflict's Flag Tank idea. They are stronger units, but they are part of your opponent's victory condition. So you have to judge when it's time to use that unit.

Quote:
2. Do you have any sort of terrain in this game?

Yes, after doing some research that all vehicle sucks in any kind of harsh terrain, I chose the following terrain:

- Plains: Regular terrain, no modifier
- Forest: cost 2 move, can offer defense and hiding
- Marsh: Cost 2 move, but amphibious units only. maybe offer defense, but no hiding.
- Mountains: Cost 2 moves, offer defense, but probably no hiding.
- Water: Nobody can move there, except amphibious units (not sure).

Infantry will move in any terrain at the cost of 1. They will also be able to hide in all terrain. Not sure about defense bonus, maybe only forest and mountains.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut