Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (Full Version)

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



Message

HansLemurson -> Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (7/31/2020 8:25:35 AM)

Machine Guns seem to do everything that Infantry can, but better. The only real difference I can see between them is that the independent MG units, being half-size, are easier to use as scouts and speed-bumps.

When it comes to the Attack, the extra firepower of the Machine Gun is cancelled out by their extra attack penalty, so it seems like a wash.

Is there any reason why I might prefer and deliberately choose to build Light Infantry instead of Machine Guns?



demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (7/31/2020 9:34:00 AM)

Well, firstly infantry is unsuited to attack at all (at least until jetpacks).

Second, you need some bodies to screen fragile units like artillery or trucks, so amount of bodies on frontline is important too.

Third, do you have a choice here? [:D] All infantry OOB will include some light infantry. And your main power will be organized force as they will get huge bonus from OHQ leader skills.



jobu13 -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (7/31/2020 11:28:37 AM)

Infantry are better at reducing unrest, since that’s all about numbers, not power. There are also a number of postures that only apply to infantry.



demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (7/31/2020 3:33:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jobu13

There are also a number of postures that only apply to infantry.


AFAIK machinegunners and bazookas are count as infantry too.



gmsitton -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (7/31/2020 10:47:03 PM)

I believe his point is that light infantry requires fewer resources to build than do machine gunners, so they are cheaper per point to use for garrison duty.



lloydster4 -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/1/2020 12:56:28 AM)

MG's are a bit more expensive to build and use more ammunition/energy during combat. In exchange, they are cheaper in manpower and significantly stronger on defense.

But really demiare hit the nail on the head early: Formations will always have more regular infantry than MG's. OHQ bonuses are too powerful to ignore. Might as well learn to love the rifleman.



coldiceEVO -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/1/2020 6:09:24 AM)

Motorized infantry use more truck than Motorized MG.
In defensive battle line, MG seems to rackup xp faster when using MG OHQ regiment(a mix of Light infantry + little MG).
I treat both as equal in defense, light infantry have slightly better odds when doing attacks, and don't waste as much ammo.
Need more research on how counter attack and so on actually work in combat to give more suggestion.



demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/1/2020 7:13:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: coldiceEVO

I treat both as equal in defense, light infantry have slightly better odds when doing attacks, and don't waste as much ammo.


No, they don't equal in fact. Your light infantry could be equipped with carbines since day0 (and usually it's your starting move on hard+), while to upgrade machinegunners you need to research Tier1 tech first. So infantry will have ~1.5..1.75 times more attack with ~80% of defensive power.



coldiceEVO -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/1/2020 7:04:24 PM)

never tried carbine before, I always start with Mil Sci council to get advanced machine guns to upgrade my buggies and infantries, followed by model design council which by then have actual design work to do.
so carbine seems to be a waste of IP and BP as a intermediate step.
But for any other council opening, carbine may be better.



Berks -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/1/2020 11:38:22 PM)

I used to start with Mil Sci council first, but you die if you get attacked by Slavers or Surviving AI's on round 1 or 2. Not enough time to upgrade your units and get them on the field.

Infantry II with Carbines can be deployed on Round 3 and moved on Round 4, which have comparable soft defence to your MG's.

You could get MG II's next, but it's better to start working on unlocking Light Tanks instead while you wait for Automatic Rifles and Padded Envirosuit research to come in. RPG's, Artillery or Motorbikes are usable if you are unlucky.

So while MG's are not a bad unit, there is too high of an opportunity cost to using them.



demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/2/2020 4:16:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coldiceEVO

never tried carbine before, I always start with Mil Sci council to get advanced machine guns to upgrade my buggies and infantries, followed by model design council which by then have actual design work to do.


Will not work on Hard+ because of slavers with tons of buggies&tanks AND nomands with 150 default hp. Purely suicidal if you're playing with "Extreme violence" history class (guess how many farmer/raider minors I have nearby? 0 [:D]).

Game have quite different strategies for casual mode and for harder difficulties.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berks
or Surviving AI's on round 1 or 2


Rogue AI will never attack you if you aren't pushing into his lands heavily until you will get Tech level 4. I'm playing now with one in 3 hex southern from my capital - few militia units keep sentinels away, they aren't attacking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berks
You could get MG II's next, but it's better to start working on unlocking Light Tanks instead while you wait for Automatic Rifles and Padded Envirosuit research to come in.


Excuse me, dear sir? You can't upgrade Machingunners until Automatic Rifles so there is no option here but wait [8|]. Of course it's logical to wait a bit more for a Padded Envirosuit then waste BP on another upgrade, especially as there is only 3 mil techs in Basic area.



jimwinsor -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/2/2020 4:20:41 PM)

I had always assumed light inf would be better at moving through rough/forest terrain than if they were lugging big MGs, but admittedly have never really studied the issue.



HansLemurson -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/2/2020 10:37:33 PM)

With the availability of Carbines, the rule of thumb I've developed is: Light Infantry for Attack, MG for Defense. (To the extent that you should ever attack with infantry at all)

The fact that MG Battalions can be formed at half-strength compared to Light Infantry seems to be their main advantage. They can hold the line just about as well, but use much less manpower.

Motorized MG battalions I've also found very useful for zipping in on light trucks to secure a strategic position before the enemy. You're not going to be attacking with them, but the MGs give enough defense to hold out against comparable forces.



zgrssd -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/3/2020 8:00:10 AM)

Aside from the cost (where Infantry clearly wins), my understanding is that MG's count as "gun" for Combat modifiers. And that combat type has some quite severe attack penalties in hard terrain. Any defensive penalties are usually well offset by the increased defense value.

On the cost side keep in mind:
- when being shot, only your HP count. And here they are equal. It does not mater how much you could kill the enemy, if he kills you first
- the attacker has a attack penalty the first 2 turns of combat. So good luck bringing that extra firepower to bear before being shot
- latest with automatic rifles, Infantry equals Advanced machineguns in anything but Soft Defense



demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/3/2020 8:16:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Aside from the cost (where Infantry clearly wins), my understanding is that MG's count as "gun" for Combat modifiers.


Highly doubt it - MG unit send in battle are increasing "infantry" block of battle window, not "gun" one.



Berks -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/3/2020 10:31:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

I had always assumed light inf would be better at moving through rough/forest terrain than if they were lugging big MGs, but admittedly have never really studied the issue.


I think Infantry and MG have the same movement as they are both have the 'Foot' movement class.



Galdred -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/3/2020 3:18:23 PM)

I think Infantry needs less AP to attack, though.
Or maybe it is because of other factors, but I found that I could usually move more before attacking with Infantry than MG, even if they had similar movement range.



zgrssd -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/3/2020 3:29:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Galdred

I think Infantry needs less AP to attack, though.
Or maybe it is because of other factors, but I found that I could usually move more before attacking with Infantry than MG, even if they had similar movement range.

One Combat Turn costs 10 AP. And they both have the same movement type (Foot).
So this observation runs counter to every piece of information I have regarding combat resolution.

Maybe you mistook a Hit/Retreat result with them retreating due to lack of AP?



HansLemurson -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/3/2020 7:29:17 PM)

Machine Guns seem to be identical to Light Infantry except in the following ways:
  • MG are 30-40% more expensive per unit than Rifles. (Guns are much more expensive, but everybody needs the same suits and armor)
  • MG have 2x the firepower of Rifles (Ignoring Carbines, which can't actually be ignored)
  • MG attack at 1/4 strength, whereas Rifles are 1/2 strength. (This gives them a roughly equal attack power)
  • MG Battalions are 1/2 the size of Rifle Battalions. (The cheapest way to just "put some soldiers over there" is to recruit an independent MG Battalion.)

    500 MG will not defend 2x as well as 1000 Rifles though, since although their defensive firepower would be the same, the Rifles will have twice as many HP. That said, 500 MG seem to do a pretty good job of defending towns and mines against raiders, and can bait them into suicidal attacks that they might not make against Rifles.



    • Twotribes -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/3/2020 7:41:35 PM)

    Anyone use automated turrets?



    gmsitton -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/4/2020 5:03:51 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: HansLemurson


  • MG attack at 1/4 strength, whereas Rifles are 1/2 strength. (This gives them a roughly equal attack power)



    • I just noticed that point in the manual. Here is the quote for everyone. It begs the question of whether or not mounted infantry have their Soft and Hard Attack Values divided by two.

    "Foot is mostly defensive
    Soldiers on foot without ranged attack have their Soft and Hard Attack
    Values divided by two.
    MGs are even more defensive
    On top of that division for being Foot, any MG also sees its Soft Attack,
    Hard Attacks and Hard Defence values divided by two. Note that its Soft
    Defence value is not divided."



    demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/4/2020 11:17:32 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: gmsitton
    It begs the question of whether or not mounted infantry have their Soft and Hard Attack Values divided by two.


    We are unable to build cavalry so for player mounted infantry is not exist :)
    If you're about motorized/mechanized regiments - infantry there still move on foot through battlefield, so they still have all penalties. Only jetpacks receive a bonus to counter it.



    Malevolence -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/4/2020 11:22:06 AM)

    The game considers both infantry and MG to be infantry super-types.

    Look at the values for offensive soft attack and hard attack and defensive soft attack and hard attack.

    These can be impacted significantly by the model's design.

    Prefer to use the models with the better values for the those value-based circumstances.

    I find the player has more agency in terms of offensive use than defensive. The adversary decides who to attack. You can only control unit positions at the end of turn.

    Ultimately, this is true of all models, given due consideration of their specific super-type rules for combat.



    zgrssd -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/4/2020 3:35:06 PM)

    It is most important to compare Unit types with equal (or at least very even) values for Firepower and Armor Str. Stuff like 100 and 100, or 100 and 200.

    With 100 Armour Strenght (base HP + Armor), Hit Points equal Armor Design Roll. As was already said, that value is the same for both. Personally I even upgrade artillery armor, when I am doing a design pass. But only up to a certain degree: I doubt the usefullness of giving Artillery Battledress. Or even giving the average soldier battledress.

    Comparing Automatic Rifles to Advanced Machine Guns:
    - MG has x2 the firepower
    - However, for every attack value except Soft Defense, MG's also have an additional 2 divisor
    - The MG also costs 3 times the ammo. Wich can be both a Metal/IP issue, and a Logistics issue.
    - MG is more Expensive, both in production and Ammo Upkeep
    - Same amount of attacks, Max Attacks (how often it can be shoot per round), Food consumption, Recon and everything else

    If I would equlize their firepower while keeping their value, comapred to Rifles the MG would be:
    - x2 Soft Defense
    - x3 Ammo Consumption

    So using it everywhere has you paying way more metal - both Upkeep and Ammo - while only giving you more defense soft attack. Wich makes enemies less likely you attack you, killing themself walking into your troops.



    gmsitton -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/4/2020 11:51:44 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: demiare


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: gmsitton
    It begs the question of whether or not mounted infantry have their Soft and Hard Attack Values divided by two.


    We are unable to build cavalry so for player mounted infantry is not exist :)
    If you're about motorized/mechanized regiments - infantry there still move on foot through battlefield, so they still have all penalties. Only jetpacks receive a bonus to counter it.





    [image]local://upfiles/43288/1630065325E44CEA9FA517532B6785E3.jpg[/image]



    gmsitton -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/4/2020 11:53:23 PM)

    Just for laughs



    demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/5/2020 1:21:24 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: gmsitton
    Just for laughs


    And? Can you design a cavalry unit? No! For player they aren't available. As nomads lack own cities - you're unable to get their unit as part of cultural militia.
    As special minor faction unit - Nomads Cavalry isn't updated with new weapons. So it's useless for player to know are they affected by attack penalty or not (but looking on their attack stat it's quite obvious that not [:D]).



    gmsitton -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/5/2020 3:21:33 AM)

    In the modern US Army, mechanized infantry are called mounted infantry. I was questioning if infantry with APCs were not considered "soldiers on foot."



    demiare -> RE: Any reason to prefer Light Infantry to Machine Guns? (8/5/2020 11:02:06 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: gmsitton

    In the modern US Army, mechanized infantry are called mounted infantry. I was questioning if infantry with APCs were not considered "soldiers on foot."


    Yes and tanks are part of cavalry regiments [:D].

    No, APC and infantry are different types of units and behave differently in battles. Infantry still have their attack penalty as it still move on foot after embarking from APC. Check combat log :)



    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    2.158203