Infantry

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Infantry

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Infantry

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Infantry - 1/15/2021 2:03:01 PM

TheTrooper

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/27/2014
Status: offline

Hi everyone, a bit for roleplay reasons a bit because to me it fits the enviroment, i thought this: does it make sense to have different infantry types? Now i always start with carbine armed soldiers. Of course as soon as i get assault rifles i create a new model, though the majority of the soldiers still use carbines. Same for gauss rifles, as i get them, the majority of the soldiers get issued with assault and elite units that i train more and bla bla get gauss or lasers. Same goes for armor, everyone can get his/her hands on padded suits, but combat armor stays for few. Of course you can imagine the progression. SPOILER ALERT: everyone still gets padded suits even in late game, just because 40k has a bad influence on me.
But aside from roleplay reasons, are the resources you're sparing worth it? I found that on resource scarce worlds like the one i'm playing, can't remember maybe it's a Siwa, no water and so far little metal, it may have sense, especially when you field advanced battledresses. Just wanna hear you guys out!

best

Post #: 1

RE: Infantry - 1/15/2021 2:40:47 PM

FMBluecher

Posts: 32
Joined: 11/16/2019
Status: offline

In one game, where I knew that to win a war with a particular major power, I would need to assault across a mountain range, I created a couple of elite brigades with battledress while leaving the rest of my infantry with heavy combat armor. Saved on machines for the regular infantry while keeping the infantry that I actually used on the attack better-protected. That's the only time I deliberately had two different "standards" of normal infantry.

(in reply to TheTrooper)

Post #: 2

RE: Infantry - 1/15/2021 2:42:30 PM

Clux

Posts: 411
Joined: 9/16/2018
From: Mexico
Status: offline

Unless you get a poor STR roll on your first model (below 90) I would stick with only a infantry line, as its the unit that gets the most field testing and quickly improves. If possible I always give my infantry the best armor and gun available, but if I'm in mid-late game (using HCA and lasers) I usually use old models with AR and combat armor (significantly cheaper) to protect the borders against minors or tackle down unrest.

(in reply to TheTrooper)

Post #: 3

RE: Infantry - 1/15/2021 3:49:46 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

does it make sense to have different infantry types?

You only can make a designpass from the last model of a Series. If you modify the soldier model, you modify all soldiers.
Some upgrades are no brainers to install (lasers, armor up to combat armor).

While stuff like Battledress relies on rather rare resources (machines), meaning you can not realy afford to deploy them across the entire Army.

Of course from a certain point of View, "Walkers" are the final version of Infantry. They try to combine the best of Infantry (terrain combat bonus) with the best of vehicles (speed, armor).

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 1/15/2021 3:51:15 PM >

(in reply to TheTrooper)

Post #: 4

RE: Infantry - 1/15/2021 4:35:17 PM

AgentFransis

Posts: 64
Joined: 1/10/2021
Status: offline

It could be cool to roleplay but practically upgrading infantry is cheap enough that there's no reason not to keep all your infantry at the latest standard. And manpower is generally your most precious resource so you want to preserve it as best as possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

While stuff like Battledress relies on rather rare resources (machines), meaning you can not realy afford to deploy them across the entire Army.

Of course from a certain point of View, "Walkers" are the final version of Infantry. They try to combine the best of Infantry (terrain combat bonus) with the best of vehicles (speed, armor).

Machines aren't really rare though. A heavy industry II with industrial robotization can output enough machines every turn to equip two whole brigades of infantry with battledress, something you can have up and running by the time you have battledress researched. My late game armies are in full battledress, besides some random independent battalions on garrison or border duty.

Walkers are a great substitute for tanks in certain roles of course (fighting in rough terrain, killing other tanks, decimating blobs of infantry) but their main problem is that they're slow. Even in forests they can barely up keep with a mechanized infantry offensive and in flat terrain they usually straggle far behind my tanks and APCs. In that sense they don't fill the primary role of infantry in mobile warfare: filling the gaps behind your tanks and sealing pockets.

< Message edited by AgentFransis -- 1/15/2021 4:36:22 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 5

RE: Infantry - 1/15/2021 7:03:07 PM

yutowap33

Posts: 71
Joined: 11/1/2017
Status: offline

quote:

i thought this: does it make sense to have different infantry types?

I always play with design quality designation and OHQ troop setting to differentiate between low quality support units like city garrisons and frontline combat units.

(in reply to TheTrooper)

Post #: 6

RE: Infantry - 1/16/2021 5:30:18 AM

TheTrooper

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/27/2014
Status: offline

I did a run yesterday and i felt this though, switching between weaponry and armors is too cheap. I mean equipping large quantitative of advanced weaponry such as lasers requires too little resources for a post-apocalyptic. I understand you're not starting from zero, but if you recall ww2 countries like Italy for example could not produce smg en masse because of the high production cost. I feel that if civilization has been wiped out in a terrible war and you start with some slughthrowers that the manual calls bolt actions, going to assault rifles or gauss should be more impacting on your production cost, therefore making crack units with assault rifles and lasers and a masse of slugthrowers and carbines more suitable. I mean you're in the future, i get that at a certain level you must be able to field pew pew shooting rifles, but also think of North Korea, their infantry still fields old uniforms and i feel like body armor is a bit neglected, this because even body armor en masse can be quite a feat for some countries. Btw in my yesterday run i equipped most of the forces with padded and carbines and against assault and combat armor they still were able to repel and win.

< Message edited by TheTrooper -- 1/16/2021 5:32:47 AM >

(in reply to yutowap33)

Post #: 7

RE: Infantry - 1/16/2021 11:15:26 AM

TheTrooper

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/27/2014
Status: offline

Btw i never used walkers, do you fielding them? I always go with fast tanks or medium tanks. I rarely used anything that doesn't have tracks, aside from sentinels.

(in reply to TheTrooper)

Post #: 8

RE: Infantry - 1/16/2021 11:39:36 AM

AgentFransis

Posts: 64
Joined: 1/10/2021
Status: offline

Yeah I get at least a few battalions when I can. They're good at clearing out rough spots like mountains and forests. They're also very good at chewing through armor. On heavily forested and/or mountainous maps I don't get tanks at all and instead attach walkers to most of my infantry brigades.

(in reply to TheTrooper)

Post #: 9

RE: Infantry - 1/16/2021 3:31:12 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTrooper

Btw i never used walkers, do you fielding them? I always go with fast tanks or medium tanks. I rarely used anything that doesn't have tracks, aside from sentinels.

Walkers are a step between Infantry and Vehicles. When looking at terrain:
- If infantry can entrench there, Walkers get half the Automatic and Maximum Entrenchment. Wich puts them way ahead of vehicle entrenchment.
- If vehicles have a worse combat modifier then infantry, Walkers tend to use the Infantry one or at least closer.
The sole exception is marshes, in wich Walkers are worse then any other vehicle.
- They can still carry vehicle size weapon and armor

(in reply to TheTrooper)

Post #: 10

RE: Infantry - 1/17/2021 4:38:17 AM

newageofpower

Posts: 261
Joined: 12/3/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
- They can still carry vehicle size weapon and armor

The amount of armor they can carry is 1-2 steps lower than a tracked vehicle of the same size category.

But between being able to Entrench and having an extra optimization, Battlemechs are generally superior in Shadow Empire.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 11

RE: Infantry - 1/19/2021 11:06:17 PM

Uemon

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/11/2020
Status: offline

This is a complicated topic.

Are old infantry units worth upgrading resources?

Well...

When you start a new game, you should start spamming infantry battalions, as many as you humanly can, as your first objective is to secure 2 hexes at the very least around your city (if there are hostiles closer than 2 hexes city gets big unrest penalties, and this is unsustainable later on, your people will get unhappy and simply leave your city). This means that first 20 or 30 turns you should have about between 15 and 30 infantry battalions (you want to make as least as possible depending on planet and hostiles). Early on, infantry is adequate against soft targets (other humans and/or small alien life). And by adequate i dont mean frontal 1 to 1 assault, no i mean position warfare, where you surround them, and attack from all possible directions at the same time to maximize all the bonuses.

But this is where infantry's usefulness (mostly) ends (where mostly is an exception if youre playing mountainous planet).

When you start running into hostile majors, they will simply mop the floor with your infantry (unless you out tech them which is very unlikely early to mid game). If they dont outright stomp you with better equipment, they will stomp you with maneuvering units, either inflicting unsustainable casualties or outright annihilating you. Infantry is slow and (mostly) unreliable.

So...

If you wanna play the game smart, no, you should not upgrade old infantry, UNLESS youre swimming in extra resources, and you can.

Why?

Because instead of wasting those resources upgrading a unit type that has limited use in major vs major warfare, you should use those resources building and maintaining units that will actually allow you to win reliably - tanks and walkers.

Both tanks and walkers (if properly designed) can absolutely ROFLSTOMP infantry. A walker battalion of 6 walkers will brutalize an infantry brigade and beat even an infantry division. A tank battalion will also probably win, but without inflicting as many casualties. Thats how powerful tanks and walkers are. And both are maneuver units (walkers being far superior).

(in reply to newageofpower)

Post #: 12

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 5:57:31 AM

Maerchen

Posts: 348
Joined: 6/16/2020
From: Germany
Status: offline

Mind that walkers are a later tech and (light) tanks are available early on. And tanks have severe terrain penalties or outright are unable to scale mountains, while walkers are real all-terrain units.

_____________________________

The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part! - Maerchen, 2020

The good thing is, we have all the information in the reports. The bad thing is, we have all the information. Maerchen, 2020

Came for SE. Will stay for SE.

(in reply to Uemon)

Post #: 13

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 6:00:58 AM

Pratapon51

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/28/2020
Status: offline

Walkers (somewhat unrealistically) dominate.

(in reply to Maerchen)

Post #: 14

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 9:26:28 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratapon51

Walkers (somewhat unrealistically) dominate.

Their ability to dominate hard terrain is entirely realistic. It is the one big reason to consider them as options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_robot

Mountains, Forrests, Ruins and Cities have always been the realm of Bipedal motion first. Tracked and Wheeled vehicles last.

If Walkers dominate warfare on a alien planet, it is because there is a lot of hard terrain for them to move and fight in.

(in reply to Pratapon51)

Post #: 15

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 2:17:19 PM

Pratapon51

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/28/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratapon51

Walkers (somewhat unrealistically) dominate.

Their ability to dominate hard terrain is entirely realistic. It is the one big reason to consider them as options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_robot

Mountains, Forrests, Ruins and Cities have always been the realm of Bipedal motion first. Tracked and Wheeled vehicles last.

If Walkers dominate warfare on a alien planet, it is because there is a lot of hard terrain for them to move and fight in.

I'm fine with the niche of walkers in SE. What I mean is, it's easy to handwave away the myriad issues of creating, maintaining, mobilizing, and armoring a large walker that occupies a niche between Medium and Heavy Tanks in a video game or any work of fiction. For example, the game doesn't take into account how fragile a Walker's legs must be to a scrape by a laser cannon or infantry RPGs, as they'd be difficult to armor comparably to a conventional vehicle.

(I am slightly mad they do get their own optimization, though!)

< Message edited by Pratapon51 -- 1/20/2021 2:21:38 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 16

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 6:13:50 PM

newageofpower

Posts: 261
Joined: 12/3/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratapon51

Walkers (somewhat unrealistically) dominate.

Their ability to dominate hard terrain is entirely realistic. It is the one big reason to consider them as options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_robot

Mountains, Forrests, Ruins and Cities have always been the realm of Bipedal motion first. Tracked and Wheeled vehicles last.

If Walkers dominate warfare on a alien planet, it is because there is a lot of hard terrain for them to move and fight in.

Realistically, that doesn't offset the lower stability (decreasing ability to use high recoil weapons, especially on the move), absurdly enlarged cross section, dramatically increased ground pressure, massively bloated surface area that needs armor.

That's not to mention the problems with maintaining a vastly more complex machine, nor the difficulty of piloting it.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 17

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 6:44:11 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratapon51

Walkers (somewhat unrealistically) dominate.

Their ability to dominate hard terrain is entirely realistic. It is the one big reason to consider them as options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_robot

Mountains, Forrests, Ruins and Cities have always been the realm of Bipedal motion first. Tracked and Wheeled vehicles last.

If Walkers dominate warfare on a alien planet, it is because there is a lot of hard terrain for them to move and fight in.

Realistically, that doesn't offset the lower stability (decreasing ability to use high recoil weapons, especially on the move), absurdly enlarged cross section, dramatically increased ground pressure, massively bloated surface area that needs armor.

That's not to mention the problems with maintaining a vastly more complex machine, nor the difficulty of piloting it.

It only needs to be better then the alternative for that situation.
The alternative is a tank.
Tank have sucked in all those terrains since the day they were invented. Walkers suck a whole lot less.

(in reply to newageofpower)

Post #: 18

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 8:28:10 PM

KarisFraMauro

Posts: 113
Joined: 12/2/2020
Status: offline

I absolutely agree walkers would be preferable to tanks in those situations, if only because tanks wouldn't even be able to enter a lot of unfavourable terrain. But are you sure tanks are the only alternative? Realistically I have to think one grunt with an rpg, or possibly even less, could ruin a gazillion dollar mechs day very quickly. And I say that as someone who grew up watching giant robot anime... Speaking of which the most realistic (and to be fair still extremely unrealistic) mecha anime I watched was Patlabor, which featured the U.N. employing quadrapedal robots in a jungle environment.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 19

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 8:42:34 PM

Uemon

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KarisFraMauro

I absolutely agree walkers would be preferable to tanks in those situations, if only because tanks wouldn't even be able to enter a lot of unfavourable terrain. But are you sure tanks are the only alternative? Realistically I have to think one grunt with an rpg, or possibly even less, could ruin a gazillion dollar mechs day very quickly. And I say that as someone who grew up watching giant robot anime... Speaking of which the most realistic (and to be fair still extremely unrealistic) mecha anime I watched was Patlabor, which featured the U.N. employing quadrapedal robots in a jungle environment.

Thats if mechs dont come with active protection systems, and they most definitely would. We have APS now today that can intercept APFSDS tank shells, imagine what they would have in a thousand years.

(in reply to KarisFraMauro)

Post #: 20

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 8:55:11 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

Realistically I have to think one grunt with an rpg, or possibly even less, could ruin a gazillion dollar mechs day very quickly.

A RPG soldier would be way more usefull against the gazillion dollar tank.
And the walker would be way more usefull against the gazillion dollar tank then the RPG soldier.
I guess you mistake is to asume that the walker would be orders of magnitude more expensive then a tank at this tech level. Not really a good starting point. To my knowledge Walkers are not significantly more expensive then tanks. I rarely got that far, does anybody have some Metal/IP/other resources costs?

High vantage points and quick movement are realy usefull to not have any infantry with RPG's sneak up on you.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 1/20/2021 8:56:01 PM >

(in reply to KarisFraMauro)

Post #: 21

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 9:02:56 PM

AgentFransis

Posts: 64
Joined: 1/10/2021
Status: offline

A high vantage point does nothing to protect you against a guy with an RPG hiding in a bush, some rubble or behind a ridge line. It only gives him an easier shot.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 22

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 9:03:14 PM

KarisFraMauro

Posts: 113
Joined: 12/2/2020
Status: offline

Well in game terms walkers are entirely justifiable on a cost / benefit basis. I'm thinking more in real world terms. For example, would active protection systems help much against IEDs? And what about more conventional attacks but in overwhelming numbers? I don't see things as having changed that dramatically since Rudyard Kipling railed against the cream of English aristocracy being laid low by illiterate Afghan tribesmen with nothing more than a scavenged rifle. But I might be wrong.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 23

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 10:18:34 PM

Uemon

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KarisFraMauro

Well in game terms walkers are entirely justifiable on a cost / benefit basis. I'm thinking more in real world terms. For example, would active protection systems help much against IEDs? And what about more conventional attacks but in overwhelming numbers? I don't see things as having changed that dramatically since Rudyard Kipling railed against the cream of English aristocracy being laid low by illiterate Afghan tribesmen with nothing more than a scavenged rifle. But I might be wrong.

The reason why IEDs work in real life is because of roads which means predictability.

One of the main advantages of walkers is that they dont have to use roads.

(in reply to KarisFraMauro)

Post #: 24

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 11:00:43 PM

KarisFraMauro

Posts: 113
Joined: 12/2/2020
Status: offline

All Terrain Vehicles don't have to use roads either. However roads are more convenient and therefore over time people will naturally gravitate towards them even when they shouldn't. Would a walker use a road as much as regular vehicle? No. Will a walker never use a predictable path that can be strategically mined? Also no. Last time I checked IEDs weren't limited to roads themselves for that matter. And that still doesn't address my concern in relation to the real-world effectiveness of active protection systems. I suspect they'd be absolutely fantastic in a lab but less so in the field.

There are other issues. Looking at nature it's incredibly rare for organisms to be bipedal. You have primates, some of them anyway, some of the time. And... Maybe kangaroos? Birds when they aren't flying, but flying is kind of the default mode for a bird. Looking farther back I guess there's the example of something like a T-rex, but even there the overwhelming majority of dinosaurs were four legged. It's difficult to see a tyrannosaur doing much outside of level terrain for that matter. Anyway there's a reason for this, namely it's a highly unstable posture. When you look at how actual robotics are employed in the military and elsewhere, they're never bipedal outside of the occasional public relations video. Probably 99 percent of my misgivings about walkers would vanish if they just went for a more practical design. If I had a swarm of crawlers coming at me then I'd be highly worried.

Also, recoil. Wouldn't it fall over every time it fired? You could place the weapons lower on the body but that would entail problems of its own. And on and on and on. I wish giant walking robots were practical because they're dang cool, but they aren't and even if technology made them remotely viable there are any number of alternatives which would be far superior.

(in reply to Uemon)

Post #: 25

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 11:22:45 PM

Uemon

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/11/2020
Status: offline

Im not sure exactly where youre going with all of this overall. Could you destroy bipedal walkers in asymmetric guerilla/insurgency style warfare? Probably. Right now we are at the point where both West and Russia have effective (though not fully battle proven) systems that on paper can stop any anti tank weapons that are widely used - such as RPGs - which are mostly like 1970s and 1980s tech. The newest APS can even intercept highly specialized anti tank shells which used to be impossible due to projectile speed and size. So i wanna say that in a thousand years we will be at a point where you cant lob equivalent of RPGs (extremely simple and cheap weapon) at walkers and expect them to work like can openers. You would probably have to use some specialized (read: expensive) anti walker system, i wanna say some kind laser or beam weapon, we have that those in game.

About bipedal posture: listen, friend, take your reason and logic and go away. You gonna dispel my childhood memories of playing mech warrior? Hell no. BIPEDAL SUPREMACY BRO (also speaking of recoil, walkers only really start taking off when you put lasers on them in game)

(in reply to KarisFraMauro)

Post #: 26

RE: Infantry - 1/20/2021 11:26:30 PM

AgentFransis

Posts: 64
Joined: 1/10/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KarisFraMauro
And that still doesn't address my concern in relation to the real-world effectiveness of active protection systems. I suspect they'd be absolutely fantastic in a lab but less so in the field.

You mean current day real world ones? Israeli Trophy works just fine in the field. Notably in the 2014 operation in Gaza many Merkavas took part in heavy urban warfare and none were hit, tough they weren't facing the very latest weapons. Same with the Russians in Ukraine.

(in reply to KarisFraMauro)

Post #: 27

RE: Infantry - 1/21/2021 1:45:39 AM

KarisFraMauro

Posts: 113
Joined: 12/2/2020
Status: offline

I apologize for assaulting mech warrior dreams ;) I've put a fair amount of thought into exactly what sort of contexts, if any, giant robots would make sense and come up with one or two. They're sufficiently convoluted for me to refrain from boring everyone to death but involve nanomachines if that helps.

As for the Israeli Trophy, I was not familiar with that. Today I learned a thing! Still leaves my other concerns but thanks for giving me something to look into.

(in reply to AgentFransis)

Post #: 28

RE: Infantry - 1/21/2021 12:07:25 PM

Uemon

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/11/2020
Status: offline

Be careful though, because although Trophy *works* the actual effectiveness is not really known because what is publicly available is something in between Israeli marketing/propaganda and actual reality. BTW iirc Americans are experimenting with Trophy right now, looks like its gonna end up on some US tanks as well.

(in reply to KarisFraMauro)

Post #: 29

RE: Infantry - 1/21/2021 1:59:12 PM

AgentFransis

Posts: 64
Joined: 1/10/2021
Status: offline

Sure but similarly one might argue that the effectiveness of nearly all modern weapon systems is not truly known since there hasn't been a major war in decades. Not even a proper Arab-Israeli war, which doesn't matter anyway since they have mostly obsolete equipment now. I doubt the current AP systems are in any way perfect but at least they seem to work well against older RPGs and ATGMs which is already very valuable. I heard about Ukranian reports of T-90s protected by an "invisible shield" but can't find one online right now.

Language corner: Trophy is the export name. Locally we call it wind coat/windbreaker (me-il ru-ach with a soft ch) which is a much nicer name. And the Russian Shtora system means curtain which is cool on several levels.

(in reply to Uemon)

Post #: 30