Infantry & Vehicle Gameplay

The most exciting part of the new patch for me is the increased degree of difference between bots and vehicles. However I am not convinced PA's ground gameplay is as good as it could be, even with fairly minor tweaks to the current paradigm.

The biggest feature that leaps out at me is the new price structure of bots and vehicles. Doxes are now 90 metal, a mere 13 mex seconds each. The main vehicles are 150 metal- both the Pounder and the Spinner. The reduced price point of infantry is very cool, but I am unsure if there is enough difference between bots and vehicles with regards to the similarity of their prices.

My thinking on the design of these units is that each bot and vehicle should behave differently, and that each factory should play differently using mixes of its units. And that combined arms using different factories should be an upgrade from relying purely on bots or vehicles because of the degree of difference between the units.


Bots as Infantry

The 90 metal price point for basic bots is very exciting, since already bot armies are looking pleasantly large in numbers. And they currently do work well in combined arms by placing bots in front of tanks. But their "infantry" nature of occupying space can be pushed a lot further, making them play more like infantry and increasing their differentiation from vehicles (and aircraft), and creating combined arms play from using them together.

What I would like to see for "infantry" gameplay is having bots be less speedy than vehicles, but gain effective mobility because of their facility for spreading and covering many areas simultaneously. Infantry bots would exert influence over a large area by spreading their numbers out instead of by moving quickly wherever they are needed. This isn't to say that the bot factory cannot contain speedy units- but that the main line, high-efficiency combat bots should be slower than the main line combat tanks/vehicles.

The high-mobility, high-numbers combination encourages consolidated swarms. High-numbers, low-mobility units that are efficient to station in many locations in smaller groups has a lot more strategic potential. This means a player can station a group of bots on a target area to hold it, making it difficult for the enemy to push them out.

To this end, I propose reducing bots' movement speed significantly, and increasing bots' combat efficiency. At the same price point, increase their HP and damageI would also like to see bots get some flexibility, such as having a short-range bot with both an anti-ground and anti-air weapon. An efficient all-purpose unit and main line ground combat bot (Dox) would play very differently from a vehicle factory with a strong main battle tank and strong dedicated anti-air. Possibly as an additional option alongside the dedicated anti-air Stinger.

The basic bot roster might be designed around cheap, versatile, and efficient units, and with more expensive bots as support for a large army of basic troops, making them fewer in number than the main army. Units like the new GIL-E sniper, and potentially more types of support unit that can be added later.


Tanks & Vehicles

The 150 metal price point for basic vehicles is less exciting, because it is only a factor of two different from bots, and the basic design of the factories remains fairly similar, despite the functional differences between the units.

The Pounder looks and feels like a solid tank when used, and I like the unit. But I think its "tank" design can be pushed even further at a higher price point.

The problem with the Pounder is simply that it costs too little. To push its tank design as far as possible, it should be more expensive than a scant 150 metal. At 7 metal per tick per mex, 150 metal is only 21 mex ticks. Less than a Peewee in TA. My thinking is that the Pounder should be fairly analogous to the Stumpy from TA, which costs 165 metal on the TA scale of approximately 1.5 metal per mex tick. So, translated into the PA scale of 7 metal per mex tick, the Pounder should cost about 800 metal, with increased stats.

Suppose the Pounder were designed at a higher weight class. Such as 1000 metal, with twice or three times as much HP, and increased range, damage, and move speed. Specialized cheaper units can support a backbone of tanks, like the Pounder, which I am conceptualizing as a flexible medium tank for about 1000 metal. The important thing to remember is that a unit cost of 1000 metal is actually still affordable since each mex produces 7 per tick. With 10 mexes it would take only 14 seconds to pay for one.

The major change from increasing the cost per individual Pounder is that they will be difficult to acquire in the early game. Other units in the basic vehicle factory, at lower cost, can easily be added or modified to make up for this deficiency. Skitters as scouts, and maybe light vehicles with bigger guns as well, including specialized vehicles with big primary weapon systems, but little or no armor, supporting a core of expensive main battle tanks at the front.

Likewise, the Spinner might be designed as a more expensive, more powerful dedicated SAM anti-air, at a higher price point. Increased range and damage, and designed around big single-target damage at long range. Each unit should behave differently from each other unit, potentially allowing bot AA and Spinners to serve different battlefield roles together at the same time.

The vehicle factory's roster structure can also be differentiated from the bot factory by having cheap, light support units backing a core of expensive main battle tanks. We are already seeing a skeleton of this structure, such as the Skitter and the Inferno being very useful units in addition to a beefy army of tanks. Increasing the weight class of tanks and introducing more types of light support vehicles will extend this design and increase the level of difference between vehicles and bots.


Conclusion

The new patch is very good. Bots are now very cheap, and fight in pleasingly large groups. Tanks are now bigger, and have pleasantly solid armor and reliable main guns. But bots and tanks still play fundamentally similarly, be that Doxes and Pounders, or Stingers and Spinners. As well as the basic similarity in how the factories themselves play because of the similarity of their rosters.

I think bots can be made into slower, versatile, and high-efficiency combat units. And vehicles can be made into bigger, mobile combatants with high-power weapons. This would make bots and vehicles different, such as making Doxes and Pounders play very differently. And make the factories play differently because of a different roster structure by having different types of units be specialized or versatile, and having different roles be designed at different price points in each factory.

a "infantry" gameplay model needs either armor types, which we dont want for PA, or the possibility of taking cover. Company of Heroes is a good example of armor types and infantry works in this game. So I dont actually understand your definition of "infantry", slow and spreading wide. Doesnt make sense to me^^

I don't follow, what is an Armor type supposed to do for Infantry combat?

Mike

I disagree. Just because other strategy games that attempt to model realistic/historical warfare will use these methods to differentiate infantry and armor doesn't mean that they are necessary.

It seems to me that the core of infantry gameplay is having smaller individuals that are slower and shorter-ranged, but versatile and highly efficient. Infantry are excellent at holding a line, defending a position against an assault, being stationed far afield, and fighting against a variety of different enemies. They advance slowly, but form a relatively solid and controlled area, usually a line with a relatively secure area behind the line, and with the enemy on the other side.

The other critical aspect of infantry is support. Infantry are generally effective at direct combat, especially defensively, but they lack mobility and reach, so infantry rely on support in many different ways. Because of their relatively slow speed, the line advances slowly and has difficulty reinforcing along its length. Instead, faster "cavalry" units like tanks and gunships can lend focused strength anywhere along the line. Armor support is critical, especially when making aggressive moves, and can be used to displace enemy units and allow infantry to move in and seize that territory.

Long-range assets like artillery and aircraft can use their reach to help anywhere along the line on a moment's notice. Air support and artillery are also necessary in order for infantry to reach beyond their range, such as eliminating key targets beyond your reach or behind the enemy lines. The infantry in the front act as an obstacle to an enemy moving into the area, and gain vision of enemy movements nearby. With a line, if the enemy is massing on a particular point, you can call in fire support and more mobile reinforcements.

Neither armor types nor cover are necessary to have "infantry" bots. Bots can be cheap, numerous, and high-efficiency combat units that have slower move speed and shorter range than bigger, more expensive tanks. Bots can be stationed in squads across the map to efficiently watch and defend those areas. They can be formed into a defensive line which can advance slowly. They would be supported by artillery, air support, and so on from behind the lines. The line can be assaulted or reinforced by tank or gunship forces, as well as a massed assault by infantry. The core dynamic of having a strong but slow and short-ranged infantry army can be created without armor types or cover.

imo infantry should be cheap and low health. In armor type games this works well, as there will always be an opportunity, where even a cheap low health unit can do something and maybe even kill a high value target. In Pa this wouldnt work well, if the so called "infantry" would be slow. Even expensive high health units explode like firecrackers if only touching the range of other units or defense. It would only work if the "slow" units would be extremely high health so that they can compensate their slowness by taking a lot of damage. Or they would need extreme range. In both cases I would not call them "infantry" anymore, but either heavy armor, or artillery.

What does Infantry in reality do? Hide in Buildings, in forests, using cover, but they will never directly engage a defense line or a tank. PA simply has no buildings or forests to hide.

This is not true. Infantry do not need to have individually higher health; they only need to be more HP efficient for cost.

A 90 metal Dox would only need 20% as much HP as a 900 metal tank to be twice as cost-efficient in terms of HP. Not to mention the different HP distribution which makes the squad of Doxes much more resistant to large weapons, but more vulnerable to splash damage. A powerful tank cannon that deals a large amount of damage to a single target would have to fire ten times instead of once, which means ten times as many cooldowns and one tenth the effective DPS.

then I would not call it infantry, but cannon fodder bots.

Bots excel in 'urban' combat (short range combat, lots of cover) like a base, or rougher terrain.

They play the role of infantry without an armor system because of the way they behave.

but if you make them slow they would not excel in a base fight anymore, and this is what ledarsi suggests.

Really? Defending a base does not require speed- it requires strength. Fighting in an open field requires speed.

Slow infantry that are stronger for cost would be ideal for defending a base against fast units that are less efficient. They have to attack directly into your forces, so your movement speed doesn't matter.

given PA unit counts, infantry bots would not actually be any more vulnerable to splash damage.

artillery cannon shoots one shell at both blobs. shell 1 hits five tanks and deals 100 damage to each tank. shell 2 hits five bots and does 100 damage to each bot. thus artillery does equal damage against both targets. if the bots are more hp efficient than the artillery is actually *less* effective against the bots than it would be against the tanks.

I also believe that defensive duties ought to be the purpose of base defenses. Units ought to be primarily offensive in nature. If units are better than defenses than why build defenses~~

To buy time for you to move units to where they are needed, or to free up mobile forces so they can move somewhere else. Mobile units are always going to be better than defences because they can move.

the only reason why bots now are good in a base fight, is because they can fastly walk around buildings and have a high yaw speed of their weapons compared to slow tanks.

What Kryovow said. Ants tend to be attacking some building in a base, so you can easily flank them. The same is true in any close quarters engagement.



In open field, range counts for more than speed. Which is why in 58772 Ants eat doxen for breakfast before they get close.



Incidentally, the same advantage that bots enjoy on their home turf doesn't occur in an enemy base. They will target units before they target structures and will change target from a missile defence turret to an Ant or fabbers, which can be fatal. Very much hit and run units in that regard, as they have to keep moving so that units can't catch them.

Right now the choice between bots or vehicles seems to be simply a choice between mobility or damage, but I agree with ledarsi, they should be very distinct from each other and much less interchangeable.

I especially like the suggestion that vehicles be far more specialized and that bots be well rounded. To distinguish T1 from T2 you could flip that upside down... T2 tanks are more versatile than T1 tanks, while T2 bots are more specialized than T1 bots.

To make infantry vs vehicle damage mechanics play out most games do use armor, accuracy, or cover, but it's hardly the only way. If bots are slow and low health they become very vulnerable to artillery, as infantry should be, but if tanks have much higher damage and a slower fire rate they are very inefficient vs bots with massive overkill damage. A single Dox would remain extremely vulnerable, but an ultra-low cost point would mean they can swarm faster and easier than tanks.

Traditionally the strength of infantry is in holding ground. They defend with incredible efficiency but their lack of mobility gives vehicles strong advantages in offense. Look at Axis and Allies (old school table top game). Infantry and tanks both defend at a 2, but infantry attack at a 1 while tanks attack at a 3. Infantry are half the price. If you're trying to bunker down or repel an attacker you need infantry. As long as they don't have to travel very far they should be a more economical answer than vehicles. If you try and march them to an enemy base they should be eaten alive by artillery.

The best answer is use your tanks, planes, and artillery to destroy the enemy artillery and any fast firing defenses. Use your infantry to destroy everything else.

I really like the approach they've done with the newest build.
Before there was like no difference at all, whether you build tanks or bots, just that ants were better imo.

But now, you can really mix bots and tanks and have diverse tactics, like taking the ants (or the new vanguards when they'll work) to soak up incoming damage, and use the bots to cover your flanks and deal more damage.

Also bots are better at rushing and roaming now, while tanks can pack quite a punch.
I really love the diversification that's in the game now. Let's see how the new units will play out when they're fixed.

Greetings

As a player of men of war and the wargame series from eugen, I also wish there was some way to incorporate a clearer infantry vs vehicle dichotomy into PA. However, because Bots can reach different sizes, I feel that imposing an "infantry-like bots" scheme would limit the full potential of bots.

For example, where would FA Titans and Percivals fit into this scheme ledarsi? These units seem too large and expensive to be considered infantry. Perhaps "large bots" would be categorized as vehicles and be produced from the vehicle factory, while bot factories are relegated to producing small "infantry-like" bots?

Which brings up another question, does "infantry-like" imply a small size (in relation to vehicles)?

---------------
On a side note: while stormingkiwi makes a good point about infantry not doing well in an open field, the addition of wreckage and smart usage of walls might reduce the amount of open field in a drawn out battle. PA could also support the creation of small craters from artillery, which could help create the type of no-mans land that infantry-like bots might excel in.

I think the combat role is far more important than the size. They don't even have to look like infantry, they just need to play like them.

Those are extreme cost increases. Everything was lowered to promote more actual ground warfare and small squad interactions. Which as far as I can see has worked well. T2 is now a very viable support level.

I fear what you propose will push us back to the dark ages of, rush air and nukes.

I agree more differences should occur, but giving bots more health to the give vehicles more simply leaves them where they are currently.

Please elaborate how they play similar??? Bots raid and excel at cqc while tanks dish out the doom at nice ranges also I don't like the idea of slower main bots, you leave my raiding Mongolian s alone.

A bot could be the slowest unit in the game, but if I can spread them around the map like a bacteria infection then I can fight everywhere at once.