Question for devs: What is the biggest problem with infantry?

[AngeliDiAvanti]

As much as we would all love to see Aerotech added, I think that the devs shouldn't do so before they have figured out how to do it without breaking the balancing.



As far as I understood it, the devs want to add infantry in the long term, however due to unspecified problems they haven't bothered to progress beyond the "scribbled-notes"-stage yet.

Which problems are holding specifically infantry back?

- Lack of devs/time/money?

- Afraid of visual performance-issues when adding an infantry-model that looks like two dozen realistic infantry-men?

- No idea how to handle the visual gore when Mechs shoot and stomp squishy humans? Afraid that the gore could threaten Battletech's age-rating?

- No idea how to program that Mech and infantry are in the same hex?



I don't see balancing as a problem. In fact, adding infantry would close the circle on a rock-paper-scissors style balancing:
Medium defeats Light.
Heavy defeats Medium.
Assault defeats Heavy.
Infantry defeats Assault.
Light defeats Infantry.

 

[Timaeus]

Which problems are holding specifically infantry back?

Being implemented in such a way that makes them fun, along with the time and money needed. The feature was explored waaay back in in the preliminary stages of prototyping, and it was determined they wouldn't be able to make infantry fun with the time and resource budget that would be allotted for development. Last known there's also a design doc for them, but it would need to be reworked since it is the example for team on how to write a design doc more than a complete "this is how we will implement this in game" design doc.

 

[bobucles]

It's clear that infantry aren't made to fight giant robots. That's why giant robots exist. The question is what else a sack of meat and potatoes can accomplish on the field. Infantry traditionally can set up traps, do mission goals and run light recon. The point of light recon is to figure out the best places to call in heavy firepower, which is usually in limited supply and can't be everywhere at once.

Traps aren't very effective on wide open maps. There's too much land to cover and it's too much luck if an enemy trips a trap or not. A tight urban map might make more sense, because highways and tight alleys are natural funneling points to set up an ambush.

Doing light recon to call in heavy firepower is kind of like, well. Why is the recon unit even there? Just abstract that part out and have the big mech do the shooting. Sensor lock is essentially a recon action after all.

Maps aren't big enough to the point where scouting is a meaningful role. The sensor bubble covers like half of a typical map and sneaking around patrols is nearly impossible. There's nowhere to hide.

Light infantry already do mission goals in a story-like way. Reach objective, magic happens, objective complete. Infantry did a thing but the mechanics behind it didn't matter.

All the support roles for meat sacks already happen outside of battle. Techies do repairs, fill ammo and none of that happens on the battlefield. The time scales between combat and repairs aren't even close enough to pretend that can happen.

So there is a really difficult question of what can infantry actually do? There's no clear role with the mechanics that currently exist.

 

[Amechwarrior]

The big problem is their speed and time. Sure it would be fun to have them on the board, but what would it play like?

They can't go anywhere in the timescale of 'Mech combat, one dot per turn. This is effectively a stationary unit only and turrets do that job better. Infantry are a barely mobile turret with MGs, not a threat in any way, except as scouters for the real opponents. They need to be hidden as an ambush trigger. Even with SRM infantry, you just don't get near them like SRM turrets in the early game.

The time problem is if you had waves of infantry, it will stretch out the AI's turn time immensely (4 inf units basically adds 50 to 100% to the # of OPFOR units) and increase time/contract for incredibly little impact on gameplay.

Those are probably the real issues that make it not worthwhile to put them in. Kiva said she wrote up a design doc for Inf. as a way to establish their design docs standard, but we might have to wait until Urban Warefare's features are announced to see if they've solved all the various problems with Inf. forces.

EDIT: Also, if they do add Inf. They should always move in Phase 5 ahead of Light 'Mechs. It's the only way they will be able to actually fire before being killed. It also meshes well realistically, as foot troops can react faster than multi-ton vehicles.

 

[AngeliDiAvanti]

It's clear that infantry aren't made to fight giant robots. That's why giant robots exist. The question is what else a sack of meat and potatoes can accomplish on the field. Infantry traditionally can set up traps, do mission goals and run light recon. The point of light recon is to figure out the best places to call in heavy firepower, which is usually in limited supply and can't be everywhere at once.

Traps aren't very effective on wide open maps. There's too much land to cover and it's too much luck if an enemy trips a trap or not. A tight urban map might make more sense, because highways and tight alleys are natural funneling points to set up an ambush.

Doing light recon to call in heavy firepower is kind of like, well. Why is the recon unit even there? Just abstract that part out and have the big mech do the shooting. Sensor lock is essentially a recon action after all.

Maps aren't big enough to the point where scouting is a meaningful role. The sensor bubble covers like half of a typical map and sneaking around patrols is nearly impossible. There's nowhere to hide.

Light infantry already do mission goals in a story-like way. Reach objective, magic happens, objective complete. Infantry did a thing but the mechanics behind it didn't matter.

All the support roles for meat sacks already happen outside of battle. Techies do repairs, fill ammo and none of that happens on the battlefield. The time scales between combat and repairs aren't even close enough to pretend that can happen.

So there is a really difficult question of what can infantry actually do? There's no clear role with the mechanics that currently exist.

Yes, infantry would be good for ambushes only, but there are ways to make infantry work. That's not the problem.

- Infantry too slow? For that we have Jump-Infantry and Motorized Infantry in TT. (The jeeps and motorcycles are included in the unit-profile, not as separate vehicles where infantry embarks/disembarks.)

- Recon? Simple solution: Infantry does not show up on sensors until they are really close. Your Mechs are being sensor-locked by infantry that is within LOS but still hard to find.

- What can infantry actually do? What no other unit can: Take down Assault-Mechs. Anti-Mech Infantry in TT has a strong melee-attack against the legs of a Mech (because they carry grappling hooks and explosives). The only effective counter-strategy is to keep moving, but while Assault-Mechs are fast enough to outrun Foot Infantry, they are too slow for Jump-Infantry and Motorized Infantry.

- Infantry would also bring the swarm-strategy to Battletech: Countering a singular strong unit with a horde of units that are individually weak, but too numerous to get rid of because the hero-unit can only shoot at so many enemies at a time.

- Infantry would also finally give Light Mechs a purpose in life. The best way to fight infantry in TT is hit-and-run as fast as possible.



Yes, all the stuff infantry currently does is currently handled offscreen or implicitly. But infantry can do more.
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Category:Infantry_Units

 

[Amechwarrior]

Yes, infantry would be good for ambushes only, but there are ways to make infantry work. That's not the problem.

- Infantry too slow? For that we have Jump-Infantry and Motorized Infantry in TT. (The jeeps and motorcycles are included in the unit-profile, not as separate vehicles where infantry embarks/disembarks.)

- Recon? Simple solution: Infantry does not show up on sensors until they are really close. Your Mechs are being sensor-locked by infantry that is within LOS but still hard to find.

- What can infantry actually do? What no other unit can: Take down Assault-Mechs. Anti-Mech Infantry in TT has a strong melee-attack against the legs of a Mech (because they carry grappling hooks and explosives). The only effective counter-strategy is to keep moving, but while Assault-Mechs are fast enough to outrun Foot Infantry, they are too slow for Jump-Infantry and Motorized Infantry.

- Infantry would also bring the swarm-strategy to Battletech: Countering a singular strong unit with a horde of units that are individually weak, but too numerous to get rid of because the hero-unit can only shoot at so many enemies at a time.

- Infantry would also finally give Light Mechs a purpose in life. The best way to fight infantry in TT is hit-and-run as fast as possible.



Yes, all the stuff infantry currently does is currently handled offscreen or implicitly. But infantry can do more.
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Category:Infantry_Units

My problems with this are that they make the best options a incredibly slow crawl across the map, slower than we've already been trained for due to other mission triggers. If the player knows there are, or could be, ambush anti-mech inf. or jump inf. that can severely cut the legs of the assaults, the player is going to inch forward across the entire map trying to detect them from as far away as possible. Speeding a Light across the field would be suicide as the lower armor and increased number of "blind" dots it travels would ensure they get hit by an ambush trigger, or end up too close to jumpers.

That basically turns Inf. in to a minefield, which like Inf. being bad turrets, minefields do better. The slow creep is also the likely reason we don't see any minefields in the game, they only serve to slow down play in increase time/mission.

 

[The Shadowhawke]

It's clear that infantry aren't made to fight giant robots. That's why giant robots exist.

That's a bit roundabout, cause and effect rhetorical but I catch your drift.

To be more precise, heavy armor, whether it be mechs or tanks, is intended to take on heavy armor.

But yet, as we see time and again since the dawn of armored land warfare in the World War era, armor and unarmored troops cross paths on the battlefield and end up shooting at each other. Which is why armor may mount coaxial machine guns, and infantry is issued anti-armor weaponry.

This is reflected in Battletech. While both the mechs and tanks make the battlefield a really big, scary place for grunts, the fact that mechs like the Vulcan are designed for antipersonell roles, and Clan weapons like APods exist in the first place means infantry still remains A factor on 31st Century battlefields.

I for one would like to see it. I think we're going to see light armor and ground troops become more relevant with urban warfare.

 

[AngeliDiAvanti]

My problems with this are that they make the best options a incredibly slow crawl across the map, slower than we've already been trained for due to other mission triggers. If the player knows there are, or could be, ambush anti-mech inf. or jump inf. that can severely cut the legs of the assaults, the player is going to inch forward across the entire map trying to detect them from as far away as possible. Speeding a Light across the field would be suicide as the lower armor and increased number of "blind" dots it travels would ensure they get hit by an ambush trigger, or end up too close to jumpers.

That basically turns Inf. in to a minefield, which like Inf. being bad turrets, minefields do better. The slow creep is also the likely reason we don't see any minefields in the game, they only serve to slow down play in increase time/mission.

Yes.

Infantry would transform the way a battle flows. Mechs and heavy tanks are pinpoint units, anchors. You steer the battle by moving dots on a map. Coordinates and distances rule the game.

But a mass of light vehicles and infantry would blanket the battlefield. There would be actual frontlines. The battlefield would no longer be covered in dots, it would be covered in lines and areas. There would be actual frontlines that you simply cannot pass. You can rush past one or two enemy Mechs, but you cannot rush through a horde of vehicles and infantry.

You would have to find a way to break an actual frontline, to shift it, to get around it, to get through it.

Such battles would be slower, but far more complicated and challenging.

 

[Amechwarrior]

Yes.

Infantry would transform the way a battle flows. Mechs and heavy tanks are pinpoint units, anchors. You steer the battle by moving dots on a map. Coordinates and distances rule the game.

But a mass of light vehicles and infantry would blanket the battlefield. There would be actual frontlines. The battlefield would no longer be covered in dots, it would be covered in lines and areas. There would be actual frontlines that you simply cannot pass. You can rush past one or two enemy Mechs, but you cannot rush through a horde of vehicles and infantry.

You would have to find a way to break an actual frontline, to shift it, to get around it, to get through it.

Such battles would be slower, but far more complicated and challenging.

How would you address the problem of the player only having 4 units in a field of what sounds like 20+ units?

I've made a custom Flashpoint with around 12+ non-player units on the field and the time between my turns starts to approach "too long" as I sit and watch the AI fight each other. It is fun to see, but anything more than 12 or maybe 16 could be uncomfortably long. Inf. makes this worse, as most of their moves would be effectively nothing. Moving one or two dots at a time trying to desperately reach engagement range. You setup a mech game where player, enemy and friendly mechs have less screen-time than foot infantry that don't even impact the flow of combat, only slow it down.

A far better way to increase the challenge is with better AI for the elite OPFOR and custom units carrying +++ gear. This massively increases the challenge without increasing the time between turns.

 

[JibSail]

OK. So I have an idea that hopefully addresses the issues mentioned above.

First two and the biggest two.
Units are slow, and units add too much in terms of turns.
We can address this issue by making infantry have a duration. They remove themselves from combat after, say, two turns.
We have a new problem now. They spawn and disappear before even getting to the engagement.
We can address this by allowing infantry to be dropped during combat onto a location selected by the Commander.

Now you can call in infantry support, they are short lived and provide fun, tactical decision making.

It's not what everyone wants, but it's something that will add value to the game in terms of play and mechanics.

 

[AngeliDiAvanti]

Moving one or two dots at a time trying to desperately reach engagement range. You setup a mech game where player, enemy and friendly mechs have less screen-time than foot infantry that don't even impact the flow of combat, only slow it down.

That only takes so long because the AI has to weigh the situation at hand. But what if the AI does not have orders to engage you, but has orders to hold a certain position or to advance to a certain position?
If the AI is not reacting to specifics but only to a general imperative, then decisions get made way faster.

For example:
A frontline of tanks and infantry is slowly crawling across the map. Their job is to hold the line, to cover the area, not to chase down one Mech.

 

[Amechwarrior]

That only takes so long because the AI has to weigh the situation at hand. But what if the AI does not have orders to engage you, but has orders to hold a certain position or to advance to a certain position?
If the AI is not reacting to specifics but only to a general imperative, then decisions get made way faster.

For example:
A frontline of tanks and infantry is slowly crawling across the map. Their job is to hold the line, to cover the area, not to chase down one Mech.

We have something similar happen when turrets have no target, they quickly pass their 1-4 turns and control goes right back to the player. However, this would not apply to a moving front-line. Currently, the AI would need to do a path evaluation for their turn (as each encounter map is different and has different terrain, movement dots are also not set in stone but generated from editable data in a json) which would be fairly quick. Thing is, anything moving inside camera view would be subject to all the camera zoom-in features and other things to show their turn. If they can fire or do something more meaningful than move, that will also increase the time. But I have to ask - If most of these units are not doing anything but moving forward (limited weapon range for base Inf.) why have them?

You can experience what it is like when you have 4-8 slow movers (jump/motor inf speed = slow assault speed) now, drop in to any 5 skull battle that will inevitably include 8 slow assaults, that's the current amount of wait time you will have x2 for just the number of Inf. forces for one side. Double it again for a two sided fight, then add in the 'Mechs.

There might be something that could be done with making all inf. visually move "at once" by "rolling their turns behind the scenes" at "PC speed" and only slowing it down when the players units are directly impacted. But, this can really quickly get ahead of itself and the player can lose track of what units are vulnerable or what exactly happen in that mass turn if many attacks are made in a row.

 

[bobucles]

It's bad enough watching APCs attempt to move. They may as well be driven by a horde of senile old grandmas. Now imagine that with infantry, except times 10.

 

[Confector Tyrannis]

what about making Infantry be a single hex unit?

10x infantry, but it's calculated and tracked as just one unit, as it takes 'damage' it reduced the number of combat effectives in the unit. So an entire squad of infantry actually only adds ONE unit to the battlefield/turn cycles.

Otherwise i really like JibSail's idea of a dropped in, short duration burst of infantry mechanic

 

[Amechwarrior]

what about making Infantry be a single hex unit?

10x infantry, but it's calculated and tracked as just one unit, as it takes 'damage' it reduced the number of combat effectives in the unit. So an entire squad of infantry actually only adds ONE unit to the battlefield/turn cycles.

Otherwise i really like JibSail's idea of a dropped in, short duration burst of infantry mechanic

That's already how it works in the TT with 28 man Platoons acting as a single unit, occupying one hex. Kill some of them and their DMG output decreases. This is how I'm already assuming they would work in the above posts.

 

[Confector Tyrannis]

I swear as I was typing that up I was getting flashbacks to TT games back in... 4th grade? 5th?

we usually ended up not allowing infantry because.. well we were in 4th or 5th grade and the game quickly became stomp the crunchies (or try to finesse the scene to allow crazy usage of weaponry against itty bitty targets, like trying to stomp a PPC down onto a cpl grunts to see if they'd fit and pull trigger and.. did i mention we were in the 4th or 5th grade?)

So...a full platoon is 28, is 1 hex, is 'one' unit. With how reinforcement waves work and vehicles and turrets on some maps... I'm really really not seeing how the addition of a few (max 4) more 'units' of infantry is gonna be breaking my missions.

If anything that just makes them an annoying mobile (and possibly more lethal) turret to me. Not all maps have em, don't really slow down a match at all.. so with THAT in mind, I don't have any issue with slapping up to 4 hexes worth of infantry onto almost any situation I've faced in the game so far.

 

[Amechwarrior]

I swear as I was typing that up I was getting flashbacks to TT games back in... 4th grade? 5th?

we usually ended up not allowing infantry because.. well we were in 4th or 5th grade and the game quickly became stomp the crunchies (or try to finesse the scene to allow crazy usage of weaponry against itty bitty targets, like trying to stomp a PPC down onto a cpl grunts to see if they'd fit and pull trigger and.. did i mention we were in the 4th or 5th grade?)

So...a full platoon is 28, is 1 hex, is 'one' unit. With how reinforcement waves work and vehicles and turrets on some maps... I'm really really not seeing how the addition of a few (max 4) more 'units' of infantry is gonna be breaking my missions.

If anything that just makes them an annoying mobile (and possibly more lethal) turret to me. Not all maps have em, don't really slow down a match at all.. so with THAT in mind, I don't have any issue with slapping up to 4 hexes worth of infantry onto almost any situation I've faced in the game so far.

But have you ever even been fired on by a short ranged turret? Like ever? I can't think of a single time I've let a ML or shorter ranged turret actually fire. You just don't get close, ignore all turrets for mobiles then clean them up after at no risk. Inf. with ML/SRM weapons at best, MGs and Rifles at worst are just less of the threat than turrets unless you can hide them inside something and spring them on a player that has gotten too close.

Tossing in 4 extra Inf isn't going to be a big deal, that's the same as adding turrets now. Some of the posts above were talking about "lines of combat" with what sounded like many, many platoons of Inf and other light vehicles in a fight. 4 Inf. isn't a horde or a blanket of units. See below:

Yes.
But a mass of light vehicles and infantry would blanket the battlefield. There would be actual frontlines. The battlefield would no longer be covered in dots, it would be covered in lines and areas. There would be actual frontlines that you simply cannot pass. You can rush past one or two enemy Mechs, but you cannot rush through a horde of vehicles and infantry.

What you have to ask is "What do these 4 Inf. add to the experience? There is certainly value in adding "flavor" or context or realism, but you also need to justify adding them as a gameplay element before spending the time on all of their assets and special rules you would need to make them something different than the "Urbanmech" of vehicles. A barely mobile turret players just move around and kill from range at to risk. The Urbie at least has the range to be a threat.

 

[BARBOSA (Aries)]

LRM infantry would be more of a threat. But it comes up after the arrival of Clans...

 

[AngeliDiAvanti]

What you have to ask is "What do these 4 Inf. add to the experience? There is certainly value in adding "flavor" or context or realism, but you also need to justify adding them as a gameplay element before spending the time on all of their assets and special rules you would need to make them something different than the "Urbanmech" of vehicles. A barely mobile turret players just move around and kill from range at to risk. The Urbie at least has the range to be a threat.

That's why nobody uses infantry in TT in field-battles. Infantry is only good for maps where the Mechs are severely limited in their mobility, like cities and forest.

On a map with limited mobility, Assault-Mechs are best, because they already don't care about mobility. However, once Mechs lose their mobility, infantry has the potential to defeat them.



It's all about the map. On open maps, infantry sucks. On confined maps, infantry would be killer.

 

[Amechwarrior]

That's why nobody uses infantry in TT in field-battles. Infantry is only good for maps where the Mechs are severely limited in their mobility, like cities and forest.

On a map with limited mobility, Assault-Mechs are best, because they already don't care about mobility. However, once Mechs lose their mobility, infantry has the potential to defeat them.



It's all about the map. On open maps, infantry sucks. On confined maps, infantry would be killer.

Yep, I've been trying to figure out how to make that work. Maybe let Inf. be undetected in buildings and forests? I was thinking "Oh, just let them hide in buildings for "Capture Base" where the player must enter the "Kill Zone" for at least one round but then figured I'd just kill all the enemies, then wipe the buildings, then enter the "Kill Zone" with no way for any Inf. to spawn in collapsed buildings. So then I figured you would need to hide them somewhere the player wants to go inside/close to, and can't destroy from range, Forests might be the answer. Make Inf. ambush units that spawn in forests players are going to be inside anyway. Make them only detectable within 90m base, but RangeFinders could increase that distance by 1 dot per + level of upgrade. You could even have Inf. Dmg act like support weapons in ignoring Evasion, or invert the bypass and have them ignore any Damage Reductions instead, because they are in the trees with the target.

Imagine having to choose between using forests for cover, and knowing those forests might hide infantry?

I think this probably a likely implementation. It also keeps unit # down as they don't need to appear unit and take a turn until they are triggered, they would still have to be loaded initially, as the game loads all possible units first and stores them far away from the player's map space. But it shouldn't be too much worse than a Lance of 'Mechs or Turrets.