Pendaelose;
Your explanations about aircraft ranges and multi-munitions have exactly persuaded me, cause you’re a modder and know technical and mathematical aspects of the game. We just wanted to give a total view about airforce’ s weaknesses and absurdities. As you already explained, these absurdities are based on a logical foundation (but I saw multi-munition option in a mod about india-pakistani conflict, I dont remember its name, but if you want to examine it I can dig out). What is making Generals and its mods so replayable and fascinating is its high tempo and balance in my opinion. We played many similar games, but never found the same taste even in the far more advanced games. There is no game that matches its concept (We never understood why EA didn’t make its new releases). So please let it stay as it was. But some changes can be made in the limits , as you told about ranges and firepowers. Even %10-20 range boost will be good. And firepower increasing must be considered for certain aircrafts. But I hope many suggestions follow this main route. One of them came yesterday from Apocolyps. In the rise of red mod, russian general has S-300 gladiator ABM (anti-balistic missile) platform which has the ability to hit aircrafts long before they reach their targets. In this mod I was sending 8 aircrafts to russian base, but if there were only 3 of S-300’s and if they could make two shots, just 3-4 of them could enter gatling’s or SAM’s range. Apocolyps’s suggestion may be feasible. You are the calculator, please think about it. I have some new suggestions that I thought in the light of yesterday’s discussions.
- Some aircrafts may have extra bonus versus certain target types, for example while a F-117 can destroy a defensive site or AA unit easily, they may be useless against armor.
- One of the annoying aspects of the game is “early engaging”. Patrol aircrafts defending your base are engaging as a whole the first target entering their range area. You may see 2 aircrafts hit just one infantry and return the base when you need them urgently against armor or artillery. I dont know game mechanics, but if it is possible, maybe some target priorities could be coded for certain aircraft types. For example F-117s may never engage armor or infantry (because it is ineffective for such units) and wait for closing AA units, while having a relative security due to its stealth, then it can destroy the AA ability of the enemy column threatening your Antitank aircrafts. Migs may engage infantry thanks to its napalm ability and ignore armor because flames are not so effective against them. F-18s or raptors will engage only armor and light vehicles, not others. Of course you will engage everything if you micro-manage your aircrafts. The same thing is also valid for land systems. You may frequently see your patriot battery just hittin an infantry when tanks destroying it, or a gatling site attacking to a tank, when an easy target such as infantry wandering around. I dont know this could be done, but this is an another way for increasing the effectiveness of land systems and especially of aircrafts without effecting game balance.
Remaining suggestions for this turn will focus to infantry, because of your personal tendency to them. I feel you will prioritize to consider infantry suggestions
. I know you have a stand-alone forum for infantry suggestions, but we want to keep our suggestions together. Sorry.
My first suggestion will be valid not just for infantry but for all basic land vehicles. It is really hard in General to control hundreds of units in a high tempo battlefield. Frequently you loose your units without understanding what were happened to them, because you forget where they were. Grouping by using ctrl+numbers is not enough (there are only 10 numbers) in the case of you are trying a multi-directional assault against human players and micro-managing your units. We don’t know if that can be done (due to technical considerations), but in our opinion, somebody has to make this: producing units as squads, companies or battalions (whatever you call it) as we have already seen in some another games. This will simplify the game control, increase playability and fun, give the ability to make decisive assaults and develop new tactics.
For example, your artillery and tanks must be accompanied with AA systems against aircrafts and infantry (for chinese gatling tanks), so usually you group them. In the same way, you have to use rifle infantry with your antitank infantry for protecting them against other rifle infantries. This micro management is not easy and AI will always do that better than you, because it may control every unit at the same time. So we can produce some units (not everyone, such as aircrafts, helis, heavy armor like emperor etc), especially most produced ones as a group, but in a combined arms approach. These will not occupy many slots and be located at the barrack or warfactory as an optional buttons, and if you dont want to use them you may still produce them one by one. War factories currently have secondary menu windows, we can expand them (if it is possible). Our suggestions for some of the most used units and their main tactical formations are as follows:
Rifleman Company: 4-5 rifleman + 1-2 AT +1-2 mortar (if you add this one)
Anti-tank Company: 2 rifleman + 4-5 AT + 1 mortar
Special Forces Squad: 2-3 rifleman + 1-2 sniper + 1-2 AT (all of them must be stealth, and have detector ability, have more firepower and hit points)
Suh a configuration will exactly raise the effectiveness of infantry. Neither a gatling gun can find a rifleman without AT support nor enemy rifleman can easily reap your AT gunners. They move together, engage together.
Armor Battalion: 3 tank +1-2 AA/SAM vehicle +1-2 artillery
Mechanised Infantry Battalion: 3 IFV/APC (with full of infantry, I dont understand why other generals’ APCs and IFVs not coming with full of infantry then infantry general, filling them with infantry is just waste of time) + 1-2 AA/SAM vehicle +1-2 artillery
Of course these numbers are just suggestions, and can be changed due to technical requirements and your approaches. But using land vehicles together in a combined arms fashion, will be very good. At least this must be done for infantry if it can be done. This could be the first step for rescuing infantry from its defensive and supportive roles.
Infantry entrenching ability that I read in infantry suggestions forum may be very useful and can change infantry’s destiny in Generals, especially if it is combined above mentioned group behaviour suggestion. You know if infantry is not entrenched or not moving with the support of armor or IFVs, they will be just target board for ambushing enemy infantry or heavy vehicles. Let’s think a scenario: 1-2 rifleman company and 1-2 AT company are leaving the base to a rally point where you determined as a forward base under aircraft cover or by using your armor as a screening force in front of them. If you encounter enemy forces, your armor can engage them and infantry can support. If you can reach your target, you urgently start to make field fortifications that could be changed due to General or side. These locations may provide extra resistance against certain attackers and you may support these locations with other defensive vehicles. While this locations attract enemy fire and attention, you can enlarge your bases, heal yourself, or prepare to a large attack. By using this temporary forward bases, you may jump from point to point to the enemy base. Currently if you want to use this tactic, you have to send your dozers to open field and build more expensive and energy hungry defensive sites where you always need to deploy many dozers for repairing.
This arrangement may lead to new options: if we can do infantry more survivable in the field, we can add machine guns to the tanks and be saved from absurd infantry-tank confrontations. I’m talking about “The AT gunner can destroy the tank if the tank does not crush him“ thing. These are just my brain-stormings that I thought now. Please consider them.
My another suggestions will be about infantry varieties. Reload mod are using mortars since its first versions. Mortars are the basic indirect middle-range anti-infantry weapon deployed by infantry in a large scale. Mortars always outrange all infantry weapons and will kill other infantry without approaching them, even the entrenched ones. If this fragile wepon can be protected by rifleman (or act as a part of an infantry team as I suggested above) it can be the solution you seek for anti-anti-infantry problem thanks to its long range (+special munitions such as napalm etc.). My other infantry varieties:
- Snipers for all Generals (this is necessary against infantry general’s massive assault or air drops)
- Medic as a part of infantry companies (healing in the field)
- Battle hardened officer -some kind of hero ( I saw them in some mods, they are training units in an area and rising their experience level, be it infantry or vehicle; another usage of officers may be calling air or artillery support in emergency cases) - can be built one at a time
- Combat engineer: You have already done this. But all generals must have them and they must have the ability to build various field fortifications. All technical processes can be assigned to combat engineer, such as clearing or laying mines (if you have time to do this – again I repeat my artillery mine deploying ability), biohazard cleaning, radioactivity cleaning etc, preparing booby-traps etc. More importantly you have to give field repair ability to them (mechanic).
- Basic special forces unit (rangers are special forces but we have to consider them in Generals as rifleman) who have the capability to deploy a wide range of hardwares, and use at least two weapon options (like as in the reload mod, marines can toogle between rifle and shotgun, rangers can toogle between M242 light machine gun and M16…). They must be exactly stealth and have detector ability. These capabilities may be balanced by making them far more expensive. Capture enemy building ability: I m not sure.
- ATGM gunner: More range and firepower but also longer reloading times.
Support infantries (engineers, medic) must be stealth, I know this is ridiculous, but otherwise nobody use them cause they will always be killed while they are moving in the field. An another option is to use combat vehicles carrying 3-4 combat engineer to the field under armor protection like US medic humwee (again why medic humwees not coming with full of medics and nurses
).
These alterations can give infantry many supportive and defensive roles and give to players more desire to use them more frequently. But what can we do for offensive roles? In today’s battlefield infantry can be used in offensive roles in three area: urban warfare (because armor and aircraft wont work here) and special forces behind enemy lines for diversion, reconnaissance and target designation purposes, and mechanized infantry accompanying tanks against other infantries. Generals’ urban maps are really dangerous for armored vehicles thanks to garrisoning ability. But we can add more special forces aspect to the game. As I already suggested above in grouping suggestion, special forces must be stealthed and detector. They must move faster than basic infantries, have the ability to deploy different charges and mines, the ability use UAV’s etc. Even they can be used for moral effects like as in older leaflet ability for discouraging enemy. No need to say they have to be faster, stronger and have more firepower than ordinary infantry. I saw what special forces can do in reload mod playing as a General called “Chief of staff”. It was a general power. An aircraft was parachuting a 20 men team consisting rangers, snipers and AT gunners. They were all stealth and could detect stealthed enemies. They are capable of killing large infantry groups including infantry general’s one without heavy casualties and destroying small armor groups. They were exactly overwhelming against buildings. They were just vulnerable to aircrafts and helis. Such a group can easily destroy lightly defended or uncovered enemy base or strategic buildings such as super weapons and strategy centers or make diversion while you attack with your main forces.
An another thing that is important for making infantry more useful is to increase armor or hit points values of APCs and give IFV to the generals focusing heavy armors (I dont know why chinese troop crawler dont have the ability to be added weapon platforms like tank general’s crawlers or airforce’s strikers– is that a technical restriction?). The reason of players evading from using infantry is their weaknesses and speeds. If we can send them to the frontline in APCs and IFVs with acceptable losses, everybody will want to use them. This will be a mechanized infantry force completing tanks’ role in assaults. Because when you find your tanks in the middle of enemy base without support of anti-infantry-infantry (especially if you have lost your gatling platforms), your armor can be crushed by infantry and defensive sites.
My last suggestion is to make all buildings of all generals garrisonable by infantry for simulating an urban environment. Slot numbers can be changed due to dimensions or importance of the building. This will lead a heavy street figthing for the enemy broke your defenses and entered to the depth of your base, so you may find enough time for healing and refreshing your forces. This option may manipulate players to use them more frequently. I know you have different building defense options for each generals, but there must be a standart for all Generals, some may want to garrison his buildings with more advanced infantries such as snipers and ATGMs (if you do this).
I think this is long enough for now. But I have managed to summarize our suggestions about infantry. Keep up the good work.
