Global Triumph

I think reducing the combat effectiveness would cause people to not use them in combat at all, too much hassle.

What? How do you figure?

When you compare an L9 Tank v L9 Infantry, 1 Tank smashed through about 5 infantry.

And if you've ever run L9 Infantry into Turrets you know it takes about 6 of them to clear it out.

I agree.  Nerfing infantry which are already the most used and certainly the most micro-manage-intensive unit would mean you'd have to use even more of them to effectively gain ground.

From what I undertand, Johnny is going with the idea that each sector represents the size of a large city of about 60 miles: presumably to go along with the "global" concept.  I however think the way we buy and play units play units more reflect each sector at about a mile.

1 L9 tank = $8,100
5 (or 6) L9 infantry to eliminate a L9 tank = $4,500 (or $5,400)

Not that I have a opinion on this issue... yet. Just stating the monetary values.


That said, there should be some sort of a method that is more effective than mass infantry. As of now, the only reasonable option is to counter with your own mass infantry.

I think the current system works and would be hesitant to alter infantry values. I like the idea of greater splash range on missiles, at least for damaging infantry. It would also save time to click directly on a deployment sector.

I think the addition of new units would solve some of the problems listed here. Perhaps a mobile land artillery unit that has a similar mechanic of a battleship and/or give turrets a bombard command. These could also have splash damage.

That would be pretty sweet actually
If adding another unit is too much of game v1 game changes, maybe turrets can be added the ability to fire offensive artillery on rounds their sectors are not under seige.


As far as anti- infantry....what about mines or destructable obstacles that completely block or slow down infantry or just tanks or both?  I can see those being reasonably cheap and being placeable by infantry.  If giving this ability to normal infantry is too much, then maybe create a new class of "engineer" infantry?

Although you look at cost you fail to account for "power density".  it will require you 5 or 6 times the land with infantry to beat a tank charge.  This is why jeeps and tanks are a late game unit. Just like other RTS's where you research upgrades once you get to the point where the cost of a tank isn't a major factor that's when they are useful. The same with the missiles vs. jets choice.

Turrets are not good anti-infantry though.  They about cost as much as the cost of what they can blast (not including tanks).  So it's an even money exchange except is has the disadvantage of not being mobile.  They're not worth the waste of manpower so I tend to just bypass them as much as possible.

Although I think that power density was intended to be part of the balancing equation, it is worthless at present. There is no map, not even Cerato, where two powers each made enough $ that power density ever became an issue. A 1x deep wall of tanks versus a 9x deep wall of infantry (note that each side has the same $ value) will result in a 3.5x deep wall of infantry moving forward on the second turn. True, the tanks will have gained about 5 sectors on the first turn, netting ~$10 (at $1.96 resource per sector) for the expenditure of a $8100 L9 tank (making a return on the investment in over 2 real years - 810 game turns).

There is nothing valuable in the game, so losing sectors is relatively irrelevant on short timescales.

The complaint here is not exactly only about infantry units / infantry blobs, so much as a complaint that there is only a single long-term strategy -- get into a ground war ASAP with at least a 9x sector width territory, then spam infantry blob until someone gets bored or misses a turn. Since there is plenty of interesting stuff in naval warfare (since no one can afford 3x deep L9 warship lines across swathes of the map) and landings require creative use of a variety of units to establish a beachhead, those parts of the game are fine. But once the land-war-proper begins, it is nothing other than BORING INFANTRY. There is no way to cost-effectively create a break in an enemy's line, no disincentive to creating enough infantry to cover china other than getting really bored. Think of the scale this way, my 9x L9 infantry wall (before I lost the time to spend 2 hours placing and commanding >200 new L9 infantry units a day) would be solid infantry for 540 miles -- I would have an infantry march stretching from Houston to Dallas... and my landing on Iguano would have been about as long as the whole gulf coast.



If people would like power density to remain part of the equation, perhaps nerf the power density of infantry? Cut the cost and the power in half, to $50 for strength 10?

If people do not like the idea of changing units stats, how about changing what you can order? You only get a population of X and that limits how many units you can buy each turn, so once you run low on population you have to use tanks or jeeps instead of infantry.

There are more ways to fix this, I am sure, but having a game where the winner is decided by who gets bored last isn't exactly fun.

I think one of the upgrades that need to be made to this game ASAP is an upgrade where you can click, drag a box, and produce as many infantry as you can (meaning within a base's range etc.) in that box.  Placing a billion troops in two hours is no fun at all, and it makes big countries impossible (or very time consuming) to control.  I think a mass-clone-create shortcut is really what's needed here.

This has been discussed and is not really an option for now. It is however the method that will be used in V2. 

And thats why I like the smaller maps.

I too wish we had smaller maps for the sake of the scale of gameplay as well as to train and encourage new players.  The strategy for winning remains the same, but players would have more opportunities for restart rather than hanging on or quiting on a map they're loosing for months.  And for as much as it has been suggested, I'm not sure why there hasn't been more vocal support, or why Johnny hasn't really bitten on it.

From the sound and look of things, I think Johnny has gotten a bit busy with real life and real work (that pays $) of late. Give him some time and he'll be back.

What?? Are you trying to say he's got better things to do than support this free game???

:P

your not taking into account air strikes on each  where to take out a tank is a lot more then an infantry unit

Air power is the worst combat to use from a cost-efficiency standpoint (usually the most important concern). The ranged-strike value of air attacks is not to be underestimated for its tactical value in certain situations, but  air power blows as a strategic choice because it is too expensive.

Also, taking out a tank by air is less expensive than taking out an infantry: $900 tank = L1 tank = strength 90, $900 infantry = L9 infantry = strength 180.

This gives me an idea for another possible balance change: What if units had different armor values versus different movement types (air, sea, ground)?

Sure if you sent a 9x deep wall of infantry and all I put up was a 1x deep wall of  tanks sure you would get through.  But I aint that stupid. On Cerato where more then anything time is more import I would just put up a 9x deep wall of tanks and you would then need a 81x deep infantry attack (probably somewhere in the 70's but who's counting).  If you have the patients, space, and time to build that go ahead. 

Not to mention I can lay down radiation ahead of my tanks that will melt your infantry whilst my tanks stroll by cleaning up your wounded and conquering your land. muahahaha.

I'm not agruing that infantry are pretty powerful, and that yes at a cost to power ratio they are a better investment then tanks. But in practice when it comes down to it if you can afford the tanks you can battle out of tight spaces while having fewer units to actually manage.

It's at this point I think your either very poor at math or a politician (not poking fun just making a point which is coming up right about ... now)

Only a politician would use a L1 unit vs a L9 unit to compare cost to kill. Or your math skills prevent you from being able to make a straight across comparison. haha

Here is Demow's rules for using air you build anything less then a level 9 jeep your letting me kill you essentially for free. On Cerato jets are so cheap that i don't miss 1/4 lost in a night of air raids. but wait there are still 3/4 of my investment left. That's far better odd's then land units and definitely better then the one off of a missile.  I know Cerato doesn't count (because of income inflation) but even on smaller maps if used wisely jets are lethal.  Everybody build level 1-3 infantry first day so when your forces meet theirs or are about to, call in the air strike.  You units get further into their territory without taking damage and since your infrastructure can't keep up with early expansion loosing that first wave is deadly time consuming.

It's worth noting that own more then 1/4 of the jets on Cerato.  As nothing keeps my boarders moving against underpowered units like air power.

This message was brought to you by the letter "D"

p.s. seriously not making fun of your math skills or attacking you personally. the L1 vs L9 thing just made me chuckle

L3 infantry = $300.

Most people sends at least two jets to deal with it. One even.

L1 Jet = $500
L2 Jets = $1000

In nearly all cases, a L3 infantry can kill a single jet before dying. I love spamming L3 infantry early on and watch my enemies lose miserably when they try to jet me. It's yet another reason I avoid air combat.

He's comparing cost-efficiency of tanks vs. infantry in regards to air strikes. That was not any arbitrary comparison.

An L1 tank costs the same as an L9 infantry. It costs more to destroy the infantry.

He could also compare 9 units of L9 infantry to 1 unit  L9 tank. Both cost 8100, It would still cost more to destroy the infantry.

His math is solid.

Not really  because you guys keep focusing on cost comparison.  A L9 infantry is maxed out garanteed air kill six jets, however thats just the beginning of the tanks power per square. As soon as you create a L2 tank you have surpassed the infantries abilities to attack and defend a given square.

Yes. And nine units of L9 infantry surpass the ability of one unit L9 tank (or 9 L1 tanks) to attack and defend 9 squares.

We could even expand that vector of reasoning to something more applicable: 900 units of L9 infantry or 100 units of L9 tanks (or 900 L1 tanks). The infantry are more cost effective over 900 squares than tanks would ever be. The cost is the same.

Your reasoning suggests that 900 units of L2 tanks is better than 900 units of L9 infantry. Of course you are correct, as it costs twice as much. But you forgot that your 900 units L2 tanks are now being compared to 1800 units of L9 infantry.

Or we can go back to your example: Two units of L9 infantry surpass the ability of an L2 tank to defend or attack a given square.

Your argument is flawed because a map is not a single square. This is a cost comparison discussion.

Your argument is flawed because you keep holding to an equal cost. if I can just a easily build 9 L9 tanks vs your 9 L9 infantry I win hands down.

However if I only have the radius of a base and you have me surrounded and I built tanks in every available space and you only used infantry you would never reach my base considering i had the funds to build them and maintain them.

Your argument above keeps holding to the notion of cost vs cost and granted that is a part of the battle calculation but it is not the only consideration.

That above everything is my point.  That there is more then a 1 to 1 price factor but if you want to limit yourself to that go right ahead.

The problem with even a 2x deep line of tanks is that tanks are cost-effectively vulnerable to missiles. If you target the front tank with a single missile ($4000), then the target tank unit will lose 2 tanks ($1800) and each cardinal direction (side, side, and back) tank unit will lose a tank (+ $2700). Thus the infantry-user could soften up tanks with missiles ($4000 < $4500) and the tank-user could not cost-effectively do the same against the infantry horde.

And that radiation would have to come from a horribly inefficient nuke.

Actually, jets are $800 apiece. Just makes your point stronger.

The only caveat with jets is that, early on, if you can catch L1 jeeps or L1 infantry, then jets are a great deal. Strategically, very early on in a map, they can also be a worthwhile ranged strike to blunt someone's expansion if they have not been building new land bases dense enough.

On what map and in what bizarre circumstances can you afford to build as many tanks as infantry -- where space is more of a consideration than cost? Until today I was the largest country on Iguano and until recently I held that place by a decently wide margin (>120% of 2nd place) and I never ran out of space to place >200x L9 infantry units a day.

On no map that I have yet played has space been more important than cost. The side with the largest, most efficiently-used force was the side with the most effective force. I was spamming infantry like mad on Iguano and making decent headway against 4 opponents with a combined income over double my own, and it was because I used infantry instead of tanks and air strikes. When Fremen/GM managed to make it to the front to spam counter infantry and Dryone switched to spamming infantry, my advance was immediately arrested, despite an end to suffering air strikes, and I have since been rolled back of the eastern continent's coast. the last two turns, when I only had 10-20 sectors left, I did build tanks, but they were not enough to even hold onto a single foothold base. The infantry just swamped them.

What if instead, infantry moved slower? say, 6-8 spaces compared to a tank's 9 movement. I think that may be a reasonable 'nerf'

This seems a good example.  What happens now.  As the stalemate continues the needs will change.  Tanks, air and even nukes will come into play strategically as war chests build over time.

There are no war chests. I am completely spent out at the end of every turn.

UF might still have war chests from back when they were saving and EHJ was trying to finish stomping on Lemeesee and Terra Firma, but that has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Correct?

Also, @ Manaco: Yes, reducing infantry movement distance would also be a workable nerf, since that would effectively decrease the power density that an infantry blob could place on either an area or a single sector. There are a whole slew of potential solutions to this problem, and I'm hoping this discussion can eventually highlight which 1-2 would be best.

I personally think that it makes sense that infantry has the effectiveness that it currently has, but I definitely understand your concerns.  It shouldn't come down to who has time to build more of them.

I can see the argument that they're range should be reduced by one or two sectors, so that's certainly an option.  I can also develop a "mass build" option that, instead of creating a single new unit of the type and strength selected, creates that unit in every sector reachable from the base.  That would give everyone the same capability to match while lowering the time requirement.

The click-and-drag method (currently used for mass clone attacks) is part of the core UI of GT2, so any function can take advantage of accurate mass selection.  I don't have the time right now to code that into this version, so I just thought the mass build option might be one way to address it.  Less control over the process than click-and-drag, of course, but I think it could address the problem.

I don't know how easy it would be to code, but what if there was a 'multi-buy' option where it highlights all placeable locations like normal. However, when you click to place the unit, the highlighted locations are still visible and you can keep placing without having to select buy unit again. When you are done, click on an x to stop.

Mass build of some kind would be epic

I was actually just about to ask for some sort of macro where I could hot key create a "formation" i.e.

**************
*******  *********

with one button click.


A simpler (coding) option would be to have the hot key for create same not require u to click the base in between unit placement meaning:
Say my hot key is "S"
I create unit one.
I hit "S" visible placement options for unit 2 and unit 2 appear.
place unit 2
(if im still holding "S" repeat through N)
if i have let go to place unit 2 then no unit 3.

My personal opinion;

There should be some sort of a way to counter mass infantry without needing to resort to your own mass infantry. I especially liked the idea of allowing turrets some sort of a limited offensive range; something to the extent of the ability to bombard a sector (much like a warship) or a new unit that can do indirect attacks (but would instantly die from a direct attack, it being very vulnerable)

After all, turrets can fire on air units passing overheads and adjacent sectors, yet can't do anything about land troops on adjacent sectors. Perhaps a range of 2-3 on land (much like a warship's range) would make turrets more effective and a possible counter against waves of infantry. -- It does also force attackers to consider whether or not to actually put in the effort to destroy turrets. As of now, just about everyone is just circling around turrets and ignoring them.

I've been thinking of suggesting something like this -- let me try and explain what I was thinking, it might be clearer.

Default key for clone create is "R"

Right now I click on a base and build a unit.

Then to clone I click on the base with the hot key and locations to build come up.  I select one for the clone.

I would suggest to clone

You click on any space on the board with the hot key, if there is a base in range the unit is created.

I think this would actually cut server load because you don't need the trip to the server to see legal placements, just the request and the server verifies.

What do you think Johnny?

Re infantry.

This link may (or may not) be helpful.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AomitwsBNn9HdExvbjh5VDBQWXdKX3hrMGNZNjNSWkE&hl=en

I reformatted the spreadsheet to fit my 1024x768 display, I hate having to scroll.

http://www.lordscum.com/gt/gt.xls

I would note that I think the problem is two-fold: #1) who has more time should not be an overwhelming factor in victory as much as possible, and #2) from an "interesting game" standpoint, it would be preferable if there were not a single, ultimate strategy (i.e. you can ONLY counter mass infantry with mass infantry).

As long as there are plans to address this in v2.0, I'm content to wait for solution attempts, but I wanted to at least voice what I feel is an issue so that it could be examined, debated, and handled or dropped.

That said, things are balanced REALLY well at the moment, in terms of combat values and many other factors. I would say something if I felt one solution really stood out from the others as a clear improvement rather than just a change with potential side effects.

I think maybe another ground unit would to the trick...  Or perhaps the special 'bombarding' ability added to a ground unit, like turrets.

Besides:  I know this game is not real-life, but in real-life troops outnumber tanks at least 20 to 1.  Right?  If nerfing is to be done, that is ok; but at the same time there should still be many more troops than anything else.  At least in my opinion.

And that is where the mass-clone-create feature would be helpful.

Honestly, if it were easier to create infy in mass quantities that would be great. Game balance is great. Please don't mess with game balance, I really don't want to see turrets have bombardment capabilities. If it ain't broke...

also remember space is a premium as well infantry take up 5x the effective area for strength basis vs tanks which also infers infantry would effectively loose 5 movement spaces of territory gain on a straight overrun. (the 5th unit would live to gain 3 sectors after it killed the tank. Tank's allow you to concentrate your force strength for the penalty of a cost premium. The corollary to this is a tank could gain 5 sectors of territory before being destroyed plowing into infantry units defending.

I do like the idea of reducing infantry movement units.

Also, I am capable of eliminating L9 tanks with only three L9 infantry. How? that's because my infantry are super soldiers. :)

Ahhh.  Here is the disconnect. 

Infantry is most definitely a beginning game unit.  No argument and here may be the true issue with units balance.  Most maps since Cerato have been of the 8.1m or smaller.  As they should be as Cerato is a beast and had Johnny not closed it (thank you) it would have been a perpetual world with the rise and fall of nations (and social lives).

To the point.  Most RTS's have a ramp up to end game. where at some point if all things are equal money becomes minor factor meaning your either earning just enough or to much.  The maps of size 8.1m just start getting you to that point then they end. they're sprint maps in, out, rush and win (or loose).  Once you conquer an area there never really much of a chance to regain it or a need to really defend (minus deceit by allies).

So maybe instead of nerfing one unit or another may be the answer is to cost scale accordingly for the size of the map.  make the approximate end game lend itself to making tanks missiles etc. affordable earlier in the life cycle of the map.

The road to the end game takes approximately 2-3 months (regardless of map size) at that point if you have had steady growth money steadily becomes less of a factor.  Which on most of the 8.1m or smaller maps is roughly the time it ends, and is why the remaining nations (pirating nations asside) on Cerato have bank rolls that are absurd. (I am definitely not complaining).

What??  Ya right!  lol

There is a bottleneck on Iguano that is 7 spaces at it's narrowest. I built a beachead near the bottleneck and I had a 1 sector wide invasion corridor, the rest was the responsibility of my ally.

In my case, space was at a premium and I could afford to stuff all of it with tanks because I needed to punch a hole. And what did my opponent do to counter? Build tanks. Why? Because he didn't have the space to dedicate to a line of more than 40 infantry.

However, long-term, your opponent might have been better off letting you advance with your tanks over his infantry (suffering casualties in which you are the financial loser as a result) until the battleground spread out enough that his infantry could cost-effectively eliminate your cost-inefficient tanks. I think what you experienced was a psychological failure on the part of your opponent to permit/accept sacrifice (territory in this case of) for advantage ($ in this case) [this presumes that you had the $ advantage between you two].

Then what are you doing building tanks?  :p

Deep inside, you know they are awesome.

I think the fact that the appropriate use of infantry, jeeps, and tanks can be debated is helping demonstrate that the units are probably balanced fairly well.  There are pros and cons to each.

The real issue is that infantry, though powerful in relation to their cost (which is probably fairly realistic), just take a lot of time to build.  I'm thinking a UI fix is probably the best way forward, such as the mass build option I mentioned above.

GT 2 negates the issue entirely, but it's probably too far off to just wait.

LOLOL!!

He wanted to hold the line, I wanted to punch a hole through. If he decided to fall back, he would have had two people with a comparable level of income to himself sending infy. If there was more space, there would have been infantry because the situation would have called for it. The situation called for tanks, so it had tanks.