Light Infantry... what the ****
 

So far in my Dominions "career", I've never found a use for light infantry units. They get butchered by casters, slaughtered by archers, massacred by heavy cavalry, owned by light cavalry, and annihilated by heavy infants.

Why are they even in the game if they suck so badly?

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

They're cheap and tire the opposing units. And occasionally they hit something, too.

[ April 13, 2004, 21:54: Message edited by: Tricon ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

What do you think they were used for historically? Its called "sword fodder". They are cheap and use few resources. You can build them in mass. They make good patrollers.

They can make a good front wall to draw the attention of enemy cavalry, archers, and casters so that YOUR cavalry, archers, casters can do their job. Every hit that hits a light infantry DOESNT hit someone else.

[ April 13, 2004, 21:56: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Sword Fodder?! Oh wait, that's probably sarcasm...

Light Infantry in Dominions absolutely suck. The ones that have javelins can be (just) ok in certain circumstances, but still aren't worth it. I only use them if forced to (ie by starting with them).

Illwinter is aware of this I believe, although I'm not sure anyone has come up with a clear solution, and they likely have higher priority things to address first.

[ April 13, 2004, 22:48: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, light infantry is supposed to suck. It's the peasants that you hand a pitchfork to.

Gandalf's description of them is spot on. Their job is to die.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Heavy infants do a much better at dying, they've got almost 4 times the shielding power light infantry give at not even twice the price.

Militia are peasants you give a pitchfork to, light infantry usually get paid as much as heavy (10 gold), not counting the national elites like Men at arms.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

They might live a bit longer with something like Marble Warriors, Fog Warriors or Antimagic. With those spells and anything else that boosts all friendlies on the battlefield, the more the merrier.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

As Taqwus mentioned, the moment that you can make the fight drag on, and on, and on (using spells or simply 20-1 numbers - light infantry (low encumberance) becomes an advantage rather than a waste of space...I would hate to think what a large group of flaggelants blessed with fire 9, and an air shield, and an ironskin could do to any heavy infantry or cavalry...especialy if you combine that with the surround bonus, enemy encumberance, and any defence lowering spells like web or tangle vines, etc.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

That's your solution to everything, isn't it, Taqwus? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Hey, at least you don't have to hire 'em.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Two words, two awesome words that really show the potential of a mass surround strategy:

MASS FLIGHT

That high-level spell was designed for the horde-mentality player, I swear http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Every single enemy unit that can be surrounded will be surrounded each round, so long as you have enough troops.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Light infantry serve the core and bulk of a persons army.

Their primary purpose is to die so that other more expensive units don't die. And in turn can focus on hitting while not being hit back.

Also, secondary, they serve to finish games where encumberane would force most other units to stop fighting.

And yes for the hoarde mentality of some players (R'lyeh and Ermor) they may be almost the only thing in your army.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

I would not say light Infantry sux. Ex. C'tis light Infantry armed with spear, javalin and shield can be quiet useful. An unit with 30 or more with light infantry can block off a heavy cavalry when its charging.
The light infantry can take out the heavy infantry if it gets its chance to hurling the javalins, the same goes against archers.
That's my experience with C'tis light infantry plus they are cheap http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Thilock

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

The only reason I never use light infantry (other than nations that only have light infantry for missiles, like C'tis) is that while you can produce them en masse in emergencies or for specific applications, maintaining them seems like a really bad idea.

Maintaining a single LI is usually almost as bad as maintaining real HI, per unit and, for the effectiveness, it's not even close (speaking mostly for the non javelin equipped types).

A unit that is rarely useful but occasionally it is a little better than the alternatives isn't useless...but it's not really terribly useful either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

When I don't have missile units, I just buy woodsmen or do without. The only place where archers excel (in my opinion) is against Barbarian/tribal provinces.

For everyone that suggested using Light Infantry as fodder, well, a Heavy Infantryman can Last about 4 times as long as a Light Infantryman (and don't get me started on Satyr LI) for less than twice the price... haven't I mentioned that before?

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

I'm curious, do any of you know what the words "Peltast" or "Psiloi" mean?

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, it's not. Light and skirmish infantry are not the same as peasent levy. Not even close.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is true. Those things however work better on heavier infantry, and still don't give one a reason to use LI.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's difficult to make a fight drag on for so long, especially since by the these higher end spells are available HI tends to be outclassed, and LI even more so.

Plus, Relief is also available.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">By the time you have Mass Flight you can expect to see Storm. Plus, when this tactic works it works better on heavier units, not lighter or missile units.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The core of someone's army? Curious, is this your multiplayer experience?

The crux of the LI problem is that they cost almost as much as good HI, and die much faster, which makes using them as a shield pointless.

The effect of encumberance in a LI vs HI fight is minor, as typically by the time a give HI is tired, it's already killed several LI.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

I use always a good amount of LI huskarls when playing Vanheim & Utgard Jotun.

With Vanheim I use them both for early expansion, and as a quick response force once the game advances thanks to their strategic move of 2: huskarls & mages can quickly be re-located, while the slower HI follow up at a slower pace.
Default Vanheim can also easily pull many trooper buffs that allow the humble huskarls to stand up on equal terms vs much heavier troops.

Same issue with Utgard-Jotun: the huskarls help compensate for the giant infantry troop density issues (one extra body+ one extra attack per square), and unlike HI they can keep up with the giant's movement rate.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Javelins are quite nice, if you can manage to micromanage them so that your Javeliners can repeatedly target opposing HI while a small band of your HI pins opposing HI and distracts archers.

This strategy is very easy to disrupt however, and only really works against independents. Still, this alone saves Pangaea from completely sucking.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Well as the statements as I read them are that light inf isn't totally useless, but neither any particular good, it raises some other questions ( at least for me)

first
Is light infantery to expensive? In gold cost? should they be cheaper or recive a upkeep discount, to be more used/usefull or are the avarage 10 gp a fair price for a fooder unit?

Second. I am not experienced enough to know if there low encumbrance/fatique adds up something significant usefull in more than rare conditions. Does it and is this just situational or can you actual base a strategy around it?
I have found it difficult enough to force the AI to cast spells like curse of stones, just to learn more about fatique

so can you base a strategy around Light Infantery( besides flagellants) and if so how ?

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good point about the strategic move; many of my thoughts are holdovers from Dom 1, and noticbly the HI that I have been using is strategic move 2.

I'd assumed that Huskarls were move-1 for some reason. They're as well equipped as LI comes, especially considering that Hirdman are IMHO subpar HI.

Do you find the (strat-2) skinshifters usefull? They look weak to me, but I haven't tried them.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As near as I can tell unit cost is based entirely on a unit's stats, and Illwinter seems very reluctant to change this.

IMHO, rather than reducing their cost and making them better fodder, they should instead be improved in a manner similar to how they were used Historically.

For example, what if they were dispersed and so took fewer missile/spell casualties? What if they could fallback before contract, or fire for 2 rounds then backup? What if a victor's fleeing units didn't leave the province? etc.

Then they might be usefull in small numbers, which IMHO is about right.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They generally cost much less resources, which mean they can be levied quickly.
I generally choose LI over HI because of the map movement of 2 on LI vs 1 from HI. In general, they are quicker on the battlefield as well. Some of them also are able to throw (generally useless, but better than nothing) javelins.
Some LI with longer weapons can also be useful in repelling.

I think the general Beavis-n-Butthead statement of the form "XXX sucks" where XXX stands for a particular unit generally do not stand up well in the context of DomII, since it will depend on the situation.
For example, LI might be a better choice than HI if you are in a hurry, or if your nation generally has some other form of "tank" units (knights, summons, whatever), or in later game situations where money is less of a problem than resources and you may just simply want lots of cannon fodder to absorb magic damage -- situations where even a HI will be useless, so why not take a LI?
I have learned to love LI for what it is. I think there is a saying in English: You get what you pay for. And for what you pay, LI can be quite a bargain.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Quote:

I'd assumed that Huskarls were move-1 for some reason. They're as well equipped as LI comes, especially considering that Hirdman are IMHO subpar HI.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I actually like the hirdmen for default Vanheim. They are my 'center of the line' troop of choice when facing Ermorian hordes for example, and they specifically shine for default Van when combined with the supberb Dwarf support mages.

With dwarf backup, a hirdman becomes a pretty respectable force with Legions of steel + Strength of giants (18 prot, 14? st+ broadsword damage)...perfectly capable of standing vs any other HI, and being MI esentially the hirdman has the bonus of decent defense & encumbrance.
If you cast also Destruction on the enemy line, your cheap & humble hirdmen will easily chew up even elite Emerald guards.

This doesn't mean I do not use the supberb einheres however, but rather field them as shock troops...in fact, Vanheim is the nation with the most flexible troop choice IMO, at least for my playing style.

Quote:

Do you find the (strat-2) skinshifters usefull? They look weak to me, but I haven't tried them.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The weakest of the lot IMO for Van, and the only one I hardly field.
I can only find 2 circunstances where I would field them:
-With strong magical support (marble warriors and/or fog warriors), so that they suffer little damage that their regen could make up for.

-If my offensive armies are being nuked by MW/FFS, shapeshifting would likely allow them to survive when the other Van inf would just die.

Still, these are pretty specialized uses for an overpriced troop type.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Light Infantery would be more useful if the battleground itself varied a bit more. On a dry flat ground it's pretty obvious that a man with heavy plate armour will have an advantage over a man in a leather cuirass. But if there was a penalty to encumberance in muddy, uneven, snowy, elevated or vegetation covered battlefields then the light infantery would have the upper hand.

There is no greater proof for this than the fairly wellknown Battle of Agincourt(sp?). The british troops were both heavily outnumbered and "outgunned" by the french.

The battlefield formed a wedge, which consentrated the heavily armoured knights and completely broke down their formation, and the ground was covered in sticky mud, the bane of platearmour which any liveaction roleplayer can tell you (it sticks to metal like peanutbutter sticks to cloth and weighs you down quite a lot).

This meant that while the english archers were pretty ineffective using their bows they caused massive casualites amongst the knights by routing the cavalery into the footknights, attacking in melee with their long daggers and simply exhausting the mudcovered knights until most of them drowned in the mud or were trampled to death in the complete chaos.

If the men in the back of the french force would have pulled back instead of pushing into the wedgeshaped field then its propable that most of the knights would have lived, even if the battle would have been lost. Apparently it was greed that pushed most of them onwards since there was quite a competition to take the king of england hostage and hold him for ransom.

Then again a lot can be said about the french noblemen that choose to override the commander-in-charge and engage the british forces without a real battleplan. It's still pretty ironical no? Had it not rained then history would have taken a different turn indeed.

Being able to choose your battleground if you have the faster army would be a nice addition to Dominions III. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ April 14, 2004, 10:42: Message edited by: Wauthan ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Thanks for spoiling everything Jasper http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But I knew that I'd missed something vital...

Light infantry are supposed to excel vs heavy infantry in 'difficult' terrain, such as mountains, swamps, (underwater?), forests, etc. They're also better at ambushes, hit and run tactics, skirmishing, night fighting, etc. While some units get a no-starve bonus in specific terrain (does anyone EVER take that into account when making strategic unit building decisions?), they don't get a fighting bonus, which is a damn shame as then you would be able to do some really interesting things like getting some lizzards to actually fight well (if only in swamps)...

Is there a place to suggest improvements to the appropriate people somewhere in this forum? Something like heavy inf. get a heavy encumberance penalty (+100%) when fighting in mountains, 50% in forests, etc. A 'attack and swarm enemy flank, then run away before the center has time to react' command might be interesting for fast LI.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

[quote]Originally posted by tinkthank:
They generally cost much less resources, which mean they can be levied quickly.

This is rarely an issue.

I generally choose LI over HI because of the map movement of 2 on LI vs 1 from HI. In general, they are quicker on the battlefield as well.

This is their only saving grace. Even so, in most cases it isn't enough, as often terrain or enemy borders reduce your move to 1 anyway.

Some of them also are able to throw (generally useless, but better than nothing) javelins.
Some LI with longer weapons can also be useful in repelling.

Good HI tends to have good morale, making repelling not so important. I have also found javelins to be quite effective, and nowhere near useless.

I think the general Beavis-n-Butthead statement of the form "XXX sucks" where XXX stands for a particular unit generally do not stand up well in the context of DomII, since it will depend on the situation.

Point Taken. I've debated LI several times on these forums already, and was a bit quick to cut to the chase. ;-)


For example, LI might be a better choice than HI if you are in a hurry, or if your nation generally has some other form of "tank" units (knights, summons, whatever), or in later game situations where money is less of a problem than resources and you may just simply want lots of cannon fodder to absorb magic damage -- situations where even a HI will be useless, so why not take a LI?

Because HI costs about the same, and easily defeats LI in combat? I also disagree that in a later game situation gold is less of a problem than resources, especially as you can easily convert gold into more resources by building forts.


I have learned to love LI for what it is. I think there is a saying in English: You get what you pay for. And for what you pay, LI can be quite a bargain.

I have yet to see LI be such a bargain, although in a couple of cases it is grudgingly usefull (e.g. Huskarls). Which LI are you thinking of?

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Very true! Unfortunately Dominions 2 isn't really setup to handle this.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yah, it's good to look at the full picture. Easy access to buffing spells helps vanheim immensely; it'd also help other factions, but they often don't have such easy access. I'm still not so fond of the Hirdmen though, as these things can also be done for other factions (e.g. Ulm, Machaka, Arcoscephale), if not as easily.

Vanheim has one of my favorite troop selections as well, in sharp contrast to many factions which have a wide swath of marginal troops. Both the Van and Valkyrie are a nice option (especially with blessing + Strength of Giants), and the Einheres really pack a bite once berserk.

[ April 14, 2004, 11:04: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The place for suggestions is pretty much here. The developers skim through, and sometimes pick up things without commenting.

My first thought was that a general battle effect from a province's terrain doesn't make any sense, as the battle will be fought in some open area. But your suggest could represent the effect of carrying heavy equipment through rough terrain and showing up to a battle tired, which is quite reasonable!

Perhaps heavily encumbered troops could start with some fatigue in "heavy" terrain provinces?

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Quote:

Perhaps heavily encumbered troops could start with some fatigue in "heavy" terrain provinces?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a pretty interesting idea, and the type of flavour thing IW favours adopting.

Maybe also easy to implement, same as we have extreme cold/heat penalties to encumbrance depending on province weather scales, we could have some penalties depending on province terrain.

Just should be careful not to make 0-encumbrance troops too powerful from such change.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Indeed. Plausible, simple to implement, and doesn't require extending the user interface.

I have my doubts on how it might affect 0-encumberance troops as well, and no trick comes to mind to alleviate them. Perhaps it's not so bad if such troops get a bonus in rough terrain? It's certainly thematic.

Not applying this penalty to commanders might help, so as not to penalize mages which often an effective counter to 0-enc units.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

in the same trend, perhaps heavy terrains can give added fatigues to troops, each round. This added fatigue is moreover not given linearly, but is derivated from the encumberance, so that light troops get only +1 penalty in the heaviest terrains, while HI get an added +2 to +4:

unit encumberance; added fatigue:
1-3 : +1 in swamp or mountain
4-5 : +1 in forest, +2 swamp or mountain
6-7: +2 in forest, +3 swamp or mountain ...

modify this by -1 if terrain survival ability is presents.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Faster fatigue during the battle gives me mental dissonance, as there is no terrain on the battlefield. If the field _were_ uniformly covered in rough terrain, then units like HI, cavalry, and archers should be useless.

Partially covering terrain would be ok, but is just too complex for the dominions battle engine to handle (and is perhaps better handled in another game...).

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Good idea Pocus. It's all about whom chooses the field of battle. Surely an C'Tis general would try to corner his oppponents in a murky swamp since his units got the edge. Then again undead would be even more scary since they would be immune to any fatigue increase. A further possibility for LI is to increase the size of the unit one step, to reflect an open formation. It's a bit of work but plausible enough for a mod. Might be a tad bit hard to figure out just what a "light" unit is considering the fantasy element though.

[ April 14, 2004, 11:35: Message edited by: Wauthan ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

I should add, that I have rarely seen a game with such an active and positive post release developer involvement.

Keep it up, whoever you are http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Suggested this some times ago (insert link to old thread here):
LI shouldn't move into a square where another unit from the same squad is present. Thus LI will show up with 1/3 the normal density to cover a bigger front line, which will let more units escape area spells and missile fire.
Best of all - it could use the same code that prevents units from running into poisioned/burning/whatever squares.
Oh, wait, that code still doesn't exist. Maybe that's why the dev's liked this suggestion, but we don't have it put into practice with 2.11

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Fire and flee" will do exactly that. The first part, that is ...
Wasn't there some talk about units orderd to retreat shouldn't spread out over neighbouring provinces any more but should stay with your army if you actually win the fight?

Another thing which hasn't materialized with the latest patch ...

[ April 15, 2004, 02:39: Message edited by: Arralen ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

I definitely agree with the skirmishing suggestion. Makes LI much better at their designated role without changing the gold=stats resources=equipment rule.
I'm also inclined to support the terrain+encumbrance=initial fatigue at start of battle suggestion, though I'm more than a little worried about this giving AE Ermor and its 0 encumbrance troops an unfair advantage.
Then again, it sure is thematic.
Setting game balance concerns aside and tackling this strictly from a simulation arc, the defenders in difficult terrain should either get only half the fatigue similarly encumbered attackers would get, or none at all. Swamp/Mountain/etc. survival units should also gain either half or none of the standard fatigue.

Edit: Accidental BBCode. Hate when that happens.

[ April 14, 2004, 22:02: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

The main problem is that the AI loves to use these useless units as well. This is a part of the 'weak AI' problem.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

This isn't really about LI, but I'd like it a lot if the timed orders like Hold and Attack and Fire and Flee gave you an option for timing. Like 1 turn of firing if your troops are javelineers, so the HI can't catch up to you before you run or 3-4 turns if you're using archers and you don't want them to fire when your infantry lines clash.

Also, if the battlefield were longer on both ends, so that both sides would have to run farther in routs, lighter units would be able to run down retreating heavies if you have no national cavalry and you actually managed to beat them.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree. Improving the use of LI in battle won't by itself address this single player issue, as you still wouldn't want as many LI as the AI builds.

The AI should avoid building (most) LI unless desperate. Instead, higher priority should be given to buying mages or castles. Giving the AI players a prediliction for high admin castles and a good production scale would likely help as well.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree that both should be fixed, but fixing one wont fix another. The thing I've learned about AI in SP is that he will build his troops in castle as much as he has gold or resources, but remaining gold will be spent on building units in non-castle provinces - usually militia and LI. If AI could build forts this issue would be much reduces and if LI gets fixed (improved) the problem with AI building masses of weak units will be solved.

The problem with castles was already discussed and the main problem seems to be that its hard to make rules on how would AI decide to build his castles. I would suggest discussing this in another thread since its pretty large topic and it wouldn't be good if this one loses focus on current issue.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Accruing fatigue from terrain throughout the battle seems to be more realistic compared to receiving an allocation of fatigue at start of battle. Moreover a relief spell cast at start would render the rule even less plausible, whereas the added fatigue rule would not be as easily circumvented.
Thats all IMHO anyway.

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Boy, if that's something that could be implemented without moving mountains, I'd be all for it. That would considerably change my strategy involving those units -- to where I might actually, say, use them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Provinces with terrain should place obstacles on the battlefield. Bogs, underbrush, rocks, etc. (Farmland isn't much of an obstruction unless it's rice fields - or maybe in late summer/early autumn.) Any unit that moves through an obstacle suffers fatigue equal to its base fatigue (possibly limited to once per turn if it moves through several obstacles) and may cost extra movement points too. Any unit that fights while standing in an obstacle suffers 50% more fatigue. Appropriate survival abilities eliminate these penalties.

Jasper, if I have an army of C'tissian light infantry against your Ulmish heavy infantry, the battlefield damned well *will* be entirely swampy if I have anything to do with it. If we are fighting in a swamp province it shouldn't be that hard to arrange. Realistically, the more mobile units will get to pick the battleground.

Battles being fought on fields with rough terrain were rare in medieval European history because both sides were led by heavy cavalry. Nobody wanted to fight in a swamp. But the Gallic wars were another matter - skirmishes in the woods were common and the Gauls did well in them despite their lighter equipment. This is partly semantic - such engagements weren't *called* "battles", but men killed in them were just as dead.

An example from _De Bello Gallico_ (trans. McDevitte and Bohn):
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wouldn't it be good if Dom2 light infantry could fight like that? (Of course, the Romans generally routed the Gauls in open field engagements, and Dom2 reflects that fine. But there's more to a war than open field engagements.)

And if light infantry had 1-2 points more defense, average heavy infantry might start to tire before they had already killed 3 times their own numbers and routed the rest (elite or experienced heavy infantry would still do well against average LI, but elites are expensive and experience takes time to acquire).

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This looks like a good idea at first, and easily implemented (you have to catch all "light" units in the game and mod each one, but you can start small and see how it goes), but in fact it has a problem, because size is used for many things in the game.

One of them is supply usage. If you make LI Size 4 (which will in itself ensure that they deploy one per size 6 square) instead of Size 2 (the normal Human size, which results in tight formations of 3 per square), they will start eating 3 supplies each, which means, 3 times as much as they do now. If anything, HI should "eat" more, not less, than LI (to reflect additional supply usage, as well as the increased need for food for heavily armed/armored men and their abstract supply bearers).

Also, I believe size has an effect on arrow fire - as in, the battle engine decides which square an arrow hits, then which "sixth of a square" actually gets the arrow (this may be wrong, though). If this is the case, a single Size 4 unit would have as much probability of getting hit as 2 Size 2 units in the same square, effectively making a loose formation of LI an arrow magnet (they'd cover 3 times as much ground, with a 66% filling rate, which would mean stray arrows would hit more I believe).

In fact, this Last point might be avoidable by increasing the size to 4, but giving them a 50% Air Shield (if I understand the effect of Air Shield correctly, as in, it means 50% of missiles are lost on the unit). Is that possible? And can one change supply usage? [I just had a look at the "modding.pdf" document, and didn't find commands to give an air shield to a unit, or to change its supply usage]

Re: Light Infantry... what the ****
 

Ugh! That took some time reading.

I find it strange that there is less focus on LC than LI. Perhaps everyone has given up entirely on LC. I have http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . Perhaps there was another thread regarding LC a long time ago.

There are several ideas on how to improve LI and LC. Most of what is said in this thread has been considered before, but some new ideas do pop up. Many of the ideas are good, they just havn't been implemented. Keep the discussion open.