infantry proposal fix v2.0

[Galdred]

I still don't hat the way infantry works, and I think a good part of the problem is that infantry gets to fire all its weapon, and all weapons in a squad are representedm which usually makes zero sense :
For instance, in the TT, 1 terminators gets 1 assault cannon and 5 gets 1 stormbolter. Here, we get 5 Terminators with 1 assault cannon and 1 stormbolter.
No wonder infantry is a nightmare to balance and ends up as a glasscannon.
I already posted some suggestions to improve the system during beta, but there would be a simpler fix :
allow each infantry strength to use only 1 assault weapon and 1 ranged weapon for each attack/retaliation (except for very few exceptions, like centurions, that would be allowed to fire everything, because each of them really gets the whole weapon package).
For instance, suppose we follow this change, the terminator loadout would become :
Assault cannon 1
StormBolter 4
Power Sword 1 (sarge)
chainfist 4
When firing, first terminator would get to fire an assault cannon, the next 4 would get to fire a Storm Bolter, than another one gets to fire an assault cannon and so on (for instance : 7 terminators would be : 2 AC, 5 SB).
Same when assaulting (so our 7 terminators would get to fire 2 AC, 5SB, then assault with 2 Power swords, and 5 chainfists).
And voila, infantry weapons are not nonsensical anymore, at the expense of some UI presentation issue (it would be hard to explain that each strength only gets to fire a single weapon), and we can have infantry unit sizes that are not all over the place anymore, and infantry having more body count without being OP, as most would have low penetration weapons).

[Curator]

So... Unit of orks with bigshutas - it is 30 bigshutas, right?
If it so, this is unacceptable.

[Galdred]

Currently, an unit of ork big shootas with ST30 already has 30 big shootas.
My proposal would be to make them something like 1 big shoota, 2 shootas, so that 10 have a big shootas, and 20 a shoota.

[Horst]

I solved this multi-weapon dilemma in infantry squads by reducing the specific weapon accuracy what should be mathematically correct, like if one sergeant has a laspistol then he can only hit 10%, taken he’s accompanied by 9 more guardsmen. The guardsmen will only hit 90% with their lasguns then.
You have to create several weapon entries for the same weapon types with different chances sometimes, but I think it’s worth it for a better simulation. Of course this takes for granted that you have full number units, but hey, I think it's still better than before.
The only problem is sometimes, like heroes with command squads, that four weapon slots aren’t enough. The game only shows three entries but four definitely work.
A pity the game has to have such huge UI elements to prevent showing all useful info.

[Galdred]

Indeed, modifying accuracy was something I tried during the beta, but the problem I had when I tried it is that it is not consistent with the way range works :
the range malus is not multiplied to the base accuracy, it is substracted, so for instance, if you drop the heavy bolter accuracy to 33%, then it will be down to 13% at range 3 (33%-20), which is much worse than 1/3rd of attack at range 3 with accuracy 100.
I think the formula is (base_accuracy*weapon_accuracy-range modifier)*cover_modifier (at least, it seems consistent with the simulator results).

[Horst]

Yeah, I don't plan using the Accuracy per Hex setting yet, except in special cases like when I want to reduce the effective number of shots of rapid fire weapons, or 150% for twin-linked weapons to simulate a re-roll, or giving melta weapons a better hit chance at range 1. Weapons with range 1, like a 10% chance laspistol, don’t need an accuracy reduction anyway. Such modifier isn’t used in tabletop either.
You have to improvise a lot, but I think it's not too impossible to roughly convert the tabletop stuff.

[Curator]

Currently, an unit of ork big shootas with ST30 already has 30 big shootas

OMG
Not acceptable at all.
but it is clear now, why orks with big shootas is so effective.

[Horst]

The devs use quite mushy strength-defense differences that basically everything can damage anything, especially often when units/weapons have high numbers/attacks. Only the super-heavy tanks and titans are safe from small arms.

[Plaid]

The devs use quite mushy strength-defense differences that basically everything can damage anything, especially often when units/weapons have high numbers/attacks. Only the super-heavy tanks and titans are safe from small arms.

Basically it can be solved by adding "maximum armor which can be penetrated" value to each weapon profile. But I don't know how hard is it to add and is it possible at all.

[Horst]

If a unit's effective defense is 50 points higher than the attacking weapon strength then you can't damage a unit anymore. The armour penetration is a straight proportional reduction of enemy defense.
If you like to have tanks become invulnerable to small arms fire then you have to make their defense start 50 points higher than the highest strength+AP gun.
You can do such tests nicely with the combat simulator and the mega test of the scenario editor under Edit\Unit Editor how well units perform against each other.

[Aekar]

I solved this multi-weapon dilemma in infantry squads by reducing the specific weapon accuracy what should be mathematically correct, like if one sergeant has a laspistol then he can only hit 10%, taken he’s accompanied by 9 more guardsmen. The guardsmen will only hit 90% with their lasguns then.

Nice idea, Horst!

[Kerensky]

To play devil's advocate... How does this help a common issue that has arisen: Players prefer tanks and expensive units, even if it means they use up all of their points in the deploy phase (and sometimes don't even use all of their CORE slots!) because of the firepower some of these tanks bring compared to the firepower that an infantry team brings?

If you cut up a infantry team's weaponry so that each strength point doesn't carry all weapons, you will divide their total firepower output considerably. So what then? 1/3 their weaponry, and give them 3x the squad size just to break even on firepower output? Taking three times as much firepower to destroy infantry units compared to current standards is going massively slow down gameplay.

Again, it's a matter of unit ratios. 10 Ork infantry types compared to 100 Ork vehicle types. The infantry squads aren't going to be super units that takes 10+ engagements to cut down their overwhelming numbers. Infantry swarms are conceptualized through multiple smaller teams spread out across a map, not 100+ Orks crammed together into one hex.

[Curator]

I think only scenario or core restriction can fix a problem.
No one commander can purchase an army of baneblades. And only Titans Legio consist of full Titan Army. If we play for Steel Legion, then should be restriction how many each type of unit you can purchase.

From common to rare:
X infantry
X Light vehicle
X tanks
X Avia
X Super-heavy
X Titans

Why you give to players ability to build any core? I think such freedom - is not good for game.
Maybe should give to players pick up a specialization, for some bonus slots. But solution "build any core army" is bad decision for long run and impossible to balans with that many units.

[Skanvak]

I agree that you should have a core limit for steel legion and a core limit for non-steel legion unit (may be split between marines and Titans). But well making an army of bane blade is not a good idea and in the wargame the 1st tank legion is full heavy tank so why not. Beside if the palyer are happy taking heavy unit in campaign let them do that. The question of balancing is for MP but again if 2 people agree to play full tank there are no reasons to prevent them from doing so.

The proposal for infantry goes in the correct way but is make the wrong way. The system cannot keep tract of how many special weapon there is, one unit is a unit. So instead of saying that a strength point of infantry is an infantry men you should say that a strength point is a squad and raise the hit point accordingly. That would be more effecient and easier to code.

[Horst]

Why not using army point limits like in tabletop?
Core slots are so unnecessary if you know a unit’s worth by its cost. The GW guys have already banged their heads for decades about point costs of units and all their upgrades, so hardly additional balance work to do there. Then you could still decide for yourself if you enjoy playing with only vehicles, only infantry or a smart mix of all.
It’s like starting a single scenario from scratch with 0 units and a set amount of acquisition to purchase your desired units. You would still have to pay acquisition for replacements during campaign scenarios, but could only purchase units up to a scenario-specific total cost amount. All these Titan armies would be a thing of the past with such army point limit, even if someone masters the game with hardly losses. Higher difficulty grades could reduce the army point limit, so things are getting interesting for veteran players again.

[Aekar]

How does this help a common issue that has arisen: Players prefer tanks and expensive units, even if it means they use up all of their points in the deploy phase (and sometimes don't even use all of their CORE slots!) because of the firepower some of these tanks bring compared to the firepower that an infantry team brings?

From my experience, the super heavy armored units are much more used for their resilience, and their ability to hit hard targets, and hit from far away ; than for their innate firepower.

Firepower wise and point-wise, it is the salamander scout that is awesome.
It is this unit that currently replaces some of the infantry usage vs infantry.

This leaves room for the heavy tanks as salamander and infantry can address some of the infantry mass, so the heavies just have to position themselves to address the enemy armor (and ignore or shoot the enemy infantry, of course, since there still are many - it's orks after all).

Because of this, you may take heavies, and only take the necessary vehicles and infantry to scout and speed up their output vs light targets , and the necessary artillery to speed up their output vs hard and soft targets.
This means that yes, the heavies are not that powerful vs light targets, in terms of firepower, they are just super resilient to them.
and they are picked because of this.


The notion of "resilience", and the interest the player has on it, comes from the way requisition is used for casualties, so this is another game design matter that comes well into the formula of "which unit does the player take and why".

So this still leaves room, game design wise, for upgrades on the infantry designs and their inner workings.

I don't know what you all think of these things
I myself like the idea described by Horst, it's deep and nice.

[produit]

The idea of just limiting on the number of points is cool, but it will also lead to scenario design problems. As an example, you could only buy Steel Legion conscripts, but at 100 pt per unit (if I remember well), that will give you 5-10 times more units to manage than what you have now. And perhaps, you don't have enough place for all units on the map.

However, based on the current status of the game, increasing the number of slot by 50-100% should already leave you with a lot more of options concerning the way you want to play, as you can purchase waves of low price units for your army (and that would be nice).

[Kerensky]

Scenario caps serve a real purpose that is far too dangerous to remove. Deploy zones must be a certain size, they cannot just be infinitely huge. Gameplay significantly slows down as the pool of player units expands past 30 CORE units. Units lose their individual uniqueness when you have too many of them, especially too many repeats of the same unit. Maps have size limits that must be observed. It would take map size past 50x50 to fit such an overabundance of units, and there are many technical reasons this is not feasible to do. Player turns on such gargantuan maps take too long. AI turns take too long. Memory issues on non-PC devices becomes a serious concern.

Besides, multiplayer gameplay already shows that infantry is hugely important. Multiplayer scenarios with very strict point limits, and multiplayer by its very nature meaning that tossing away units carries no lasting penalties (unlike campaign play), gives infantry a new lease on life. But that's to be expected.

Panzer Corps behaved very similar. Infantry struggled in the campaign because the campaign values long lasting units who can retain high experience scenario after scenario after scenario. Yet those same infantry are borderline overpowered in multiplayer environments where long term survivability is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the short term victory at all costs.

Also, what good what it do to inflate scenario deployment limits if player's aren't even using all of their deployment slots to begin with?

[Galdred]

To play devil's advocate... How does this help a common issue that has arisen: Players prefer tanks and expensive units, even if it means they use up all of their points in the deploy phase (and sometimes don't even use all of their CORE slots!) because of the firepower some of these tanks bring compared to the firepower that an infantry team brings?

If you cut up a infantry team's weaponry so that each strength point doesn't carry all weapons, you will divide their total firepower output considerably. So what then? 1/3 their weaponry, and give them 3x the squad size just to break even on firepower output? Taking three times as much firepower to destroy infantry units compared to current standards is going massively slow down gameplay.

Again, it's a matter of unit ratios. 10 Ork infantry types compared to 100 Ork vehicle types. The infantry squads aren't going to be super units that takes 10+ engagements to cut down their overwhelming numbers. Infantry swarms are conceptualized through multiple smaller teams spread out across a map, not 100+ Orks crammed together into one hex.

The problem is that squads being squishier than vehicles makes infantry and tanks feel very similar, with just slightly different movement tables.

Here are a few quotes from comments on RPGCodex :

So far I feel like panzer corps rules better differentiated different weapon types and gave each unit types actual valuable roles where as so far in the warhammer version it feels like weapon types are not that different from each other. But it may be that I am not understanding the interplay between weapons types and how to use them to their best ability yet. But at the moment I feel like there needs to be something done to make infantry tactics and artillery tactics more interesting somehow.

Yeah, infantry seems underwhelming so far. Heavy weapons and ratlings are ok as support units, but your regular guardsmen and hive militia are pretty much a waste of resources. I get that they suck because they're IG infantry, but you should still want them as meat shield, something to engage enemy infantry or take mission objectives, as it is I can't find a use for them.
I've managed to use a flamer squads nicely with chimera transport once, but they still got wiped out one turn after dismounting.

And finally, what I have been raging about for this entire page, the values for armour piercing (and damage in general) are completely, absolutely, ridiculously and terminally retarded. Seeing your tanks getting overrun and torn apart by grots because soft/hard target distinction doesn't exist is not something that should be happening. Realising a tailor-made anti-tank weapon is actually worse at tank-killing than glorified cleavers and shoddy machine guns is like a whole different level of retardo. Needing to first bombard enemy shoota boyz with big shootas to hell and back with artillery because a tank would get shredded by them is idiotic.

Now these complains were before 1.2 which made things a bit better, but there is still room for improvement.

Basically, one of the recurrent complains is that infantry plays no special role : anti tank weapons work almost as well against infantry, and most infantry weapons also works against tanks (mostly because the defense value are so close from each other, as Horst pointed out).

Giving higher body count to infantry without upping their damage ridiculously would make infantry have a niche purpose : damage sponge (ie, they would be able to shield high value unit, while currently, they break too early to do so), and it would make anti infantry weapons more relevant (the small infantry size resulted in head banging values for multiple heavy bolters for instance, with 8 heavy bolters dealing the same damage as 2.5*1...If that doesn't scream that the underlying system has some problems, I don't know what does...).
So basically, higher infantry strength would allow anti infantry weapons to be un nerfed, and make assault, and anti infantry weapons more important.
The main reason why lots of small infantry units do not work too well is the way retaliation works :
It worked in Rites of War because units were rather close from each other in term of efficiency, but there, one unit can be a titan, or 30 guardsmen (in Epic, a Warlord Titan costed as much as a full company of Guardsmen).
The 30 guardsmen will cause the same damage, relative to their cost than the titan (or superheavy) when retaliating against the first attack( ie, we assume the superheavy will kill something like 160 points of opposing units in retaliation while the Guardsmen will kill something like 20), but on subsequent attacks, the guardsmen will drop in efficiency as their number dwindle, while the superheavy will remain at the same efficiency.
I think huge disparity in unit power breaks the game because of it :
if attacking 60 guardsmen, the orks would face retaliation from 60, then 50, then 40 (assuming each attack kills 10), but if facing 3 platoons of 20, they will face retaliation from 20, then 10, then 20, then 10...
So the 60 guardsmen are much better than 3 platoons of 20.
Basically, giving infantry staying power would force a choice between tanks (stronger punch, lower staying power), and infantry (higher staying power, lower punch), and make dedicated infantry killers (like hellhound, macharius, and assault infantry) more worthwile.
Basically, if one unit of tanks is half a company, I think it would work better to have one unit of infantry also be half a company.
On top of that, it is pointless to represent each gun in the game, to end up giving each Terminator one assault cannon AND one stormbolter AND one power fist : either go for an abstract representation, or a "simulationnist" one, but mixing both can give very weird and inconsistent results, like terminators with three arms.

The proposal for infantry goes in the correct way but is make the wrong way. The system cannot keep tract of how many special weapon there is, one unit is a unit.

Actually, my proposal was to only keep track of the Strength in an unit, and assume that the 1st remaining guy carries weapon1, the second weapon2...

So instead of saying that a strength point of infantry is an infantry men you should say that a strength point is a squad and raise the hit point accordingly. That would be more effecient and easier to code.

I proposed just that in beta (ie to have squads for infantry, and not individuals), but it would make AT weapons even more effective against infantry, as higher Strength weapons could kill a whole squad at once. In order to avoid that, infantry could be made so that they would never lose more than 1 health/shot (so that 1 health = 1 guy, 1 strength = 1 squad), but that would make it impossible to have more than 1 health / guy (I would prefer giving them higher armor and 1 health btw, but there are good reasons to have some 2 HP infantry units), except if we make it more complex by making 1 shot kill xHP max of infantry (where x = the HP of one guy).
That would be my prefered solution indeed, but then, it would be hard to convey this information to the player.

[g4geisha]

In my experience infantry really started to shine when I started building even scenarios. Same points each side with reserves being generated every turn. You have moments where you're screaming for more meat for the grinder. Terrain also plays a big key. If you set up good amounts of buildings for LOS and movement blocking suddenly the tanks can't move or get LOS. Played 30 turns of 100 units 5000 points per turn in about a day, granted turns take 10 minutes but the scale came through when I filled my deployment zone with 30 squads of storm boyz and watched them rush to the front. The feel of apocalypse for those that play TT is there and I love it!