Suicide units in RTS

[X3M]

You know;...

terrorists, bomb cars, crashing air planes, saboteurs, devastators, fanatics.

A lot of RTS games have them.

 

How do you feel about them?

Do you find them useful or not? (Depending on the game I guess)

Do you think they are balanced?

Can they be balanced?

After usage, they are gone. Doesn't that make them useless in a long running game?

Isn't it a lame overkill in some ways? (I mean, they die anyway)

Should a game have them?

Or can a game do without?

 

I could name a long list of them from many games. Every game treats them differently. I could put this in the top 5 thread. But I would like to start a discussion about them first.

[THE AQIB]

well then saboteur will be in the list...

well they are kinda cool....

[X3M]

Which Saboteur are you talking about? There are a lot in the games out there.

 

But since this is a Dune forum.

The one from Dune2 and Dune2000 aren't that good. Of course, blowing up a building in 1 shot is good. But you need a lot of work while spending that time on your army is better. Those in EBFD can be more use full even though they are cheaper and do less damage.

[Davidu]

In order to balance these units their faction should not have normal military units. I mean you cannot have an army of bomb cars and suicide bombers. The Ghost from Starcraft was useful because it could drop a nuke, but most units are not that useful as attention is drawn mostly towards the fast paced military campaign. EBfD had more stealth units: Ordos Saboteur, the Atreides Sniper could become invisible, all Fremen units... The thing is that using covert units (such as terrorists) moves the game out of the RTS genre and into the RTT genre (more like Commandos) where you have to manage a small team and pat attention to all details.

 

If in a team multiplayer game you have one player that only does covert missions and at least another one holding the front line, then these units could be very useful in distracting the enemy's attention for your team mate to break through their ranks. 

[X3M]

Interesting point you got there.

 

Commanding a small force in RTS is called micro management. RTT means that you have a small force without backup production and resources. Suicide units in RTT are very very rare.

 

In normal RTS however, there are factions that have them. They have normal units like any other faction as well. Yet somehow they manage to balance them in a way.

 

- Scourge from SC where not balanced in my opinion, they failed in killing a swarm of battle cruisers. Hydra under dark swarm where actually better. Not to mention Plague. Anyway, they did 110 damage, while costing 37,5 each. You could have about 18 of these against 1 battle cruiser. While 13 would survive?

- Baneling from SC2 are better balanced, they are good in certain situations. However, I never took time to learn them. Those who do, are good with them.

- Terrorist from Generals, now this one was strong yet weak at the same time. You always targeted them first. If not, you could loose a tank. 200 vs the 900. That's painful. And because they where targeted first, they served as meat as well. Other units had some more time to fire.

- Fanatics from C&C3, you can stop them. If you can't you loose stuff. However, I have seen them not being that good if they manage to hurt enemy units. After all, they cost 800 while that is an average price in the game.

[Davidu]

Well, that's the thing. While you can be a little reckless with your other units you can't be reckless with terrorist units, because whatever happens they die and you could loose an investment in a very stupid way. So you need to pay a lot of attention to them. Which in the classic Westwood Studios way (or even Blizzard) means you neglect the rest of the battlefield. Which is wasteful. Imagine Sudden Strike which for me was always overwhelming, having to focus on some spy or partisan going behind enemy lines, this mean the rest of your troops get decimated because you're not there to command&supply them.

 

So I usually don't use them. Maybe they're not such a big waste of money but they're a waste of time. Few missions had this tactical aproach in order for you to do the micromanagement you said. Take EBfD for example. Why waste time on snipers and kindjal infantry when with a balanced force of Mongooses and Minotaurs you can clean up the whole map. Or some Flame Tanks and Rocket Launchers. For the Ordos I don't know... not a big fan. 

 

See, Ordos are from the start an anomaly. They're designed as terrorists, going behind enemy lines, sabotage, invisibility, etc. But they're battling 2 enemies in straight forward combat. Does not make sense. Creating the concept of an irregular / terrorist force but you force it to fight one-on-one on a classic battlefield. Here is where the classic RTS fails. It gives you the tools but does not give you the setting or the opportunity to use them as imagined. 

[X3M]

Yeah, those laser tanks are way to under powered in multi-player. Since there everything goes amass. Atreides simply win. And I do use those kindjal, since they are some extra pain. I mean, they cost 150 each, while you build 3, you have a minotaurus. If you have plenty of money, you just build them.

 

Any way, Amass eye in the sky might be a finisher. Those IX Infiltrators might be finishers too. In some games you simply safe them up. Then suddenly crush the enemy. But in that case we are talking about a player with more then enough money.

 

What if a player has those suicide units as a choice for real? I mean, you need to choose with limited money if you would buy them or not. You can try to defeat the enemy by shooting them with normal guns. Which would take for example 6 shots. But the suicide unit does 6 times more damage, and instant. This means that after the suicide unit explodes, both armies are missing 1 men already. Now it comes;

 

If the normal unit fights, but takes 2 damage per second, it can only shoot 3 times and lets say he does 3 damage in that time. If the suicide unit takes 2 damage, it can still do the full package or 6 damage. Suicide is better.

 

Now an object that doesn't fight back. The suicide does 6 damage and is gone. But the normal unit can keep shooting, it takes time, that's all.

 

It's about those red figures, where lies the balance?

Would you use those suicide units, only to be certain of the damage that they do? But then you presume to be fighting a losing battle.

If you are not fighting a losing battle, you wont use them. In matter of fact, you only use them if you are going to take out a target fast enough for other forces to move in. That would be the only reason. If you don't, the targets might have more durability or something like that due to the situation. So a 2 step assault, where, 1; the suicide units do the losing part, 2; the other units finish the fight with a win.

 

Hmmm, sounds like the zergling/baneling combo.

[Davidu]

Well something like that. But to go further into the "terrorist" idea of suicide units, the faction that uses them should not have front line units. Also they should blend in the cities etc so you cannot find them. 

 

You were making all those calculations, but think about it, in EBfD troops upgraded. What if some upgrade meant self-healing. What if you have a doctor unit? WOuld you still use the suicide troops? Remember those "invincible" squads of 10 marines and 2 medics in SC. That was mostly Blizzard's RPG experience (healers in multiplayer games).

 

Still I think the RTS nowdays does not yet have the tactical/micromanagement that it needs to fully use the "subversive" units. And there's one more thing to that. In real life the terrorists/insurgets, whatever, that use those tacticts do not expect to win militarily. They just want to wage a war of attrition against an established force and make it back off because its losses will become unmanagable in the eyes of the media/population. But since this aspect is not portrayed in computer games, the whole concept of having subversive units it will be outisde its boundaries. 

 

Also all those units: suicide bombers, trap cars should not be invisible but unnoticeable as enemies until they explode. The whole concept of these units is not invisibility but concealment. Also such a faction's money would be limited. Seriously, someone would have to study hard all the great insurgencies in order to make a game out of it. Algeria, Iraq&Afghanistan, Maoist insurgencies all over South and South-East Asia, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey & PKK, etc. 

 

Therefore a faction that primarily uses these units would have to be "underground", no open military bases, no factories, no units standing in line etc. It would be a great game anyway... :D

[X3M]

Then how do you feel about mines?

 

They actually belong in the same suicide category. Only not movable, barely any vision and in most cases stealthy until the last moment. They disappear when used, just like all other suicide units. They are the cheapest kind of suicide units in most games.

Sometimes free, but take time. Red Alert

Sometimes free, but are limited. Starcraft

And sometimes you can buy them and you can keep buying them. Laying a lot of mines. Starcraft 2 and C&C3.

 

Some are target related. Red Alert (Infantry or Vehicles)

Some are all rounders. Starcraft, Starcraft 2 and C&C3 (C&C3 mines can hurt structures when used properly).

 

---

 

The Protoss Scarab, used by the Reaver, is supposed to be a suicide unit too. You pay for each explosive, and then it rolls to the enemy. You couldn't shoot it to stop it. That's why I find this an invalid suicide unit and more of a normal weapon. I don't know if you have used them, but if you did, what is your opinion?

 

---

 

Talking about self healing. Indeed you would not use suicide units. But you would use suicide units against these self healing units. Then you do a 1 shot, 1 kill.

[Davidu]

Mines are more of a barrier and less of a weapon (in real life). They're used to slow down the enemy or make the enemy go around them. They're good for defense, but no one relies on mines to destroy an army, let's say. I mean mines are part of the strategy, but not the strategy itself, they're never the main weapon. Imagine the first soldier gets blown up, then all the other freeze and they start demining the area or they turn back and look for another way. As far as i see that's how it goes.

 

So yeah, you could use concealed explosives, mines, bomb-cars and suicide bombers to rout, delay or change the route of the enemy. But never to defeat it. Of course this is not the case of an RTS when you're playing against the AI. And in multiplayer the pace might be too fast to have time to place a million mines. Even so, the enemy might clear a path through your minefield by sacrificing either one heavily armored unit or more cheap units. And then their army will follow.

[X3M]

A barrier? Well, that is a way to look at it.

 

I can imagine a player entering a base that has walls as protection.

But with mines as barrier. The player actually has to take time taking out the mines.

But to use the mines as a shield. It becomes tricky. Units can't hide behind mines while they do hide behind walls.

 

---

 

Well, we had the suicide units like terrorists. And we had the mines.

All that remains are the combination units like the Devastator. A normal fighting unit, that actually can explode.

What do you think about that one?

[Davidu]

Walls and buildings are cover. Mines are not. 

 

You can clear the minefield with either one devastator going through or with a whole bunch of light cheap infantry. Or maybe have a specialized unit to dismantle them, but that takes time. 

 

I put the mines in the barrier cathegory because yo only use them against an attacking enemy. You cannot attack the enemy with them, so they're only defensive units used to replace soldiers on wide areas of frontline and also as warning system (when you hear one blowing up you know the enemy is coming). Therefore you can have a fairly small fighting force that you can move between the different fronts to tackle an advancing enemy while all the other fronts are (more or less) defended by mines. If you had soldiers all around the place it would be crazy expensive and hard to manage. 

 

The Devastator exploding capability is more of a flipping middle finger at the end of the unit's life hahahahha. I haven't found one situation that would make me explode a brand new Devastator. Usually is when you're being overrun or you lose all it's backup and it is surrounded. Then it makes no sense to retreat it as it is very slow so keep on fighting to the end, take out as many units as possible and at the end explode and take out more units. But i don't think you'll drive and detonate a Devastator to take out a construction yard for example. You have the Death Hand for that. 

[X3M]

The Devastator exploding capability is more of a flipping middle finger at the end of the unit's life hahahahha. I haven't found one situation that would make me explode a brand new Devastator. Usually is when you're being overrun or you lose all it's backup and it is surrounded. Then it makes no sense to retreat it as it is very slow so keep on fighting to the end, take out as many units as possible and at the end explode and take out more units. But i don't think you'll drive and detonate a Devastator to take out a construction yard for example. You have the Death Hand for that.

 

Yes, even a well placed devastator did not destroy more then its worth with a suicide only attack in Dune2.

In Dune2000 it's explosion was even weak in my opinion.

And in EBFD I never used it. Way to small area.

With all 3, they also took time to charge. I could actually dodge some explosions. Or the devastator died before it could complete the explosion.

 

---

 

Saying that mines are barriers while walls can be covers. That is true. And perhaps I should use the mines as a barrier in my board game. Not as a wall.

 

Now that I think back.

In my first board design, I had these shield generators floating in the air. You could hide behind this shield as well. But if you think about it. I still had the rule that you could hide behind aircraft. While the aircraft is flying. So if you think about it, it was pretty stupid of me.

The same goes for the mines now.

 

Different dimension units: Air or underground. They cannot cover land units.

Sounds logic, right? But they still can attack them though.

 

- I have walls and structures, or any unit, as cover implemented in my board game.

- Suicide units, are implemented too. They have a supportive role in the first attack, where usage of cards will be very important.

Unfortunately. This thread did not yet give a better vision to their role. They luckily can be used in only 1 way. That is valid and balanced enough.

- Units like a Devastator are suicide units too, for a part that is. But they can train themselves while killing units. And put all experience in the explosives. While other suicide units can only gain experience by cards.

 

!!! - Mines, are implemented. But they never felt right. Nor where they useful. Barrier you said. So let me think about it how they are of use in a board game as a barrier.

[ - ] Old way, they could be shot by any weapon.

[ + ] New way, they can only be cleared by special weapons. After all, they are underground.

 

[ = ] Old way, I could use range 0, 2 or 3. This gave factors 0,6 / 0,8 / 0,9.

[ = ] New way, I can now use range 1, 2 or 3. This gives the factors 0,8 / 0,9 / 1,0.

 

[ - ] With the old rules, they mostly had range 0. (range 1 against a connected hexagon which is 100% filled) But could be cleared by any weapon. So they couldn't even be a good barrier. You just shoot them from a distance and gain experience. It would be faster experience then blasting wooden fences. However, 0 range is the cheapest. But if you hide them behind walls, you where not allowed to use them.

[ + ] With some new rules, it will be mostly 1 (or even 2) range (plus 1 range for reaching another dimension). This means that 1 mine can cover an area of 7 (or 19) hexagons. A simulation of; "where is the mine?" This also means that they can lye just around the corner of a path. An unit can not shoot the mines, but simply walk into them, until it is in range.

 

Now the mines have become a barrier instead of a wall.

I thank you for giving me a new (more logical) way to look at mines.

[Davidu]

You're welcome :) Wall can be concealment and/or armor or cover altogether. You cannot see behind or over a wall, you could shoot through it, depending on its material and your weapon, but it would reduce the effect of the damage.

 

Also the minefields could be fake. It is known that military engineers would place fake minefields sings just to bluf and confuse the enemy troops. Nobody would go balls in hand walking through a properly marked minefield, but would rather go around it or wait for their own engineers to clean it up. By the time they realize it was fake, the enemy has pulled a good prank on them and delayed them sufficiently.

 

Infantry can take cover behind armored units, makes sense, not concealment but some armor as the armored unit shields them. Air units cannot do that of course. 

 

Now, there are a lot of types of land mines and hidden traps. Anti-armor mines do not get activated by infantry walking over them, but explode when triggered by tanks. Anti-armor are less of a barrier but more of an active defence. Also you get the trip-wires and the calymores... but those can be spotted. Also there's the jumping anti-personnel mine that explodes in mid air and sprays everyone around with shrapnel. And also the normal one you step on and just blows you up.

 

I hope I'm not making this too complicated now hahahaha :D

[X3M]

I hope I'm not making this too complicated now hahahaha :D

 

No, not at all. 8)  I am-an-an-al-ytical.

It is going slightly off topic. Unless I say that units that act like a wall or hide other units. Are suicidal too. :)

 

You're welcome :) Wall can be concealment and/or armor or cover altogether. You cannot see behind or over a wall, you could shoot through it, depending on its material and your weapon, but it would reduce the effect of the damage.

Units can hide/cover behind walls. Structures can also be covered by walls. But only 1 time. After that, the position is permanent. Of course, units can move between structures and walls.

The combat tank thinks, which of the 5 wooden fences to kill first? But if it is a concrete wall, it is done in a jiffy.

The flame tank has a problem with the concrete wall. So...

I could say, the wooden fences are better for hiding units. While concrete walls give good cover.

You need to destroy a wall(s) before you can hit units behind it. Sometimes this takes a lot of time. But with a card, you can suprise an enemy.

Of course, hiding a mammoth tank behind some wooden fences sounds stupid. But lets say, the incomming cannons are deflected a bit. And thus ineffective.

 

Also the minefields could be fake. It is known that military engineers would place fake minefields sings just to bluf and confuse the enemy troops. Nobody would go balls in hand walking through a properly marked minefield, but would rather go around it or wait for their own engineers to clean it up. By the time they realize it was fake, the enemy has pulled a good prank on them and delayed them sufficiently.

This... can not be done. Sorry. Unless you could tell me a possibility for a board game.

 

Infantry can take cover behind armored units, makes sense, not concealment but some armor as the armored unit shields them. Air units cannot do that of course.

Yes. It's the most basic tactic in my board game. The air units indeed, can not do this.

However, I am hoping in finding a way to bend the rules a bit. So that an air unti can block ground to ground fire.

There is 1 way, for the air unit to be able to land temporary and then get hit instead.

But... I would like to have a system where the shield generator blocks the ground, while it floats in the air permanently.

Another way is an air unit that is able to produce and heal "shield".

 

Now, there are a lot of types of land mines and hidden traps. Anti-armor mines do not get activated by infantry walking over them, but explode when triggered by tanks. Anti-armor are less of a barrier but more of an active defence. Also you get the trip-wires and the calymores... but those can be spotted. Also there's the jumping anti-personnel mine that explodes in mid air and sprays everyone around with shrapnel. And also the normal one you step on and just blows you up.

Specialized mines. Will be there in ACT 2 or beyond. Well, since there are mines in ACT 1. I will wait for at least ACT 3 to add more mines.

You can't hide them from players on a board. However, they are in a different "dimension". For that you have specialized weapons :).

Many possibilities. I just have to take the right ones that fit in the world.

 

Unless someone has something to add. This thread is done.

No one else has an opinion :D.

[vota dc]

Suicide units shouldn't be better than regular units, their main purpose should be killing in few time the objective. For example petards of Age of Kings are a crappy unit, they are useful only if you load from the trasport and there is a castle near the coast. Demolition squad or goblin sappers from Warcraft 2 are excellent units but still a catapult would do the same damage in a little more time. You can kill endless buildings with your catapult/artillery, suicide units will never replace that it is just for destroy key buildings/units instantly.