Soldiers...

[Alpha]

Just can't seem to make them work no matter what I do. I got the mayor that reduces upkeep by 60% so I decided to try making them for once to see how it goes, since i've had literally no reason whatsoever to even think about wanting to make them in any situation AT ALL. I got a very early strong eco due to a great map, wave 1 was taken down by about 6 rangers and some walls. After that I immediately got 3 soldier centers up, and pumped out 50 soldiers before wave 2. I had more soldiers than wave 2 had zombies. It was a complete slaughter...

Until an endless wave of zombies triple the size of the horde wave continuously poured down towards my base, which im assuming was a doom town. The soldiers hold it off easily, specially now that they vet up. Cept now literally the entire map attacks my base from all directions and its gg. Even one single soldier generates enough noise to ruin a colony, so 50 turned out pretty funny. Its sad that such a fun unit is so... pointless. It could be removed forever, and no one would even notice. Snipers pretty much outclass them completely. Damage is not their issue, since you could make them pump out 50% more DPS, and nobody would ever use them still.

I think they need a noise reduction or something, maybe give those smgs a silencer lol, or something unique that makes them just just not completely nonexistant.

[BoydofZINJ]

soldiers are a bit more powerful than rangers, but make louder noise and attract zombies more. As a result, its a good idea, only to keep a few at either key areas or small areas - where you can not use a large number of rangers effectively. Otherwise, keep using Rangers till you tech to a higher level. Snipers DPS is actually not good, but they have range and a great alpha strike.

Soldiers are situational and should be used as such.

[Bragdras]

Honestly I've been thinking about how they could buff soldiers without just giving them stat improvements and calling it a day for a while:

I think they could get away with giving soldiers a new togglable ability where they'd spend 1-2 seconds to dig up a tiny trench for themselves and pull out a rifle, they'd be immobile in that state but gain bonus armor and their rifle would give them increased fire rate & range to deal with spitters, the tradeoff would obviously be that you'd need to get into position to make the best use of them, and it could give them a nice role of being "watchtower lite".

I'm sure there would be much easier ways of making them viable like basically making them much tankier (200 hp & 10 armor) to make up for their trash range, it would still give them a role but I feel like an active ability could be cool in this game.

And yes my suggestion is basically the footsoldier from Red Alert 2, that game had the best unique units of any rts I've ever seen :p.

[Alex]

They need to do a unit upgrade system. Where you can "specialize" units. Maybe then the soldiers would be relevat, otherwise, yeah, later in game they are just a burden on your economy.

[Bawlerr]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1245743373

I know dat feel son
all soldiers with about 60 snipers. got shrecked on last hold. was fun to watch though

[Eagle_of_Fire]

You are not meant to just build soldiers. They are an intermediate unit for the transition from mid to late game.

Archers damage is almost non-existant. The soldier damage and tankiness is way higher. It is an all around unit you can't really go without and make the backbone of your roaming squadron but on which you can't build the bulk of your defense because they're not the highest damage dealers.

Archers are the the early game when you need to clear something quick but can't afford the aggro from the sound of firearms. Once that phase is done soldiers are tons better than archers for about anything but speed. I basically use my archers for early clearing and patrol then switch them for soldiers to back up my snipers.

Soldiers in towers are not very helpful, if at all. They are meant to be your mobile response unit even tho they are a little slow for that. They'll definitely get there before your snipers tho and that's what really count.

[Celebrim]

Soldiers do feel a bit underpowered. I personally think they need a slight armor buff to make them tankier, and then have the snipers hit points reduced to make them less tanky. I don't usually make soldiers because their upkeep is fairly high and they don't have a lot of use in the end game, but I once got a mayor that gave you free soldiers and they were fairly useful to have. They are tanky enough to survive spitters and executives without a lot of micro, and they worked really well as a fall back position for my archers if they pulled more than they could handle.

One trick that is important with soldiers in the early to mid-game is keeping them spread out. Don't lump them together because sound is apparently 'additive'. Three or four soldiers space out makes less 'noise' than three or four soldiers in a clump. Soldiers also kill runners much quicker than archers.

Unfortunately, soldiers can neither push nor clear by themselves. They make too much noise to push safely because you can't control what you agro like you can with rangers, and while they are better than snipers against walkers and runners, they can't clear because they are much worse against harpies, spitters, and chubbies. They have to be used in combined arms, either as a tank that follows up behind archers and acts as a fallback position, or as a screening force for snipers that can get into position and kill runners while the snipers are still getting set up. Unfortunately, veteran rangers are so good and you'll have them in such high numbers, a snipers so tanky on their one, that generally I use archers as screens in the midgame and in the late game just set masses of snipers on 'chase' with little fear that they'll get overwhelmed.

[Celebrim]

Another thing that I think would make soldiers more useful is if there were walker and runner versions of special infected that presented occasional medium difficulty challenges/pull in the early to mid game - sort of the way executives start to do in the later portions of the early game. If there were more zombies that were hard for archers to deal with on their own, then there would be more reason to have a soldier/soldiers working with them.

[Smug Kot]

Soldiers need a buff badly becouse theres no reason to even use them when rangers does the job better and are cheaper.

worst how quick you leave early game tech and as soon you get snipers, soldiers become totally useless.

The main problem with soldiers:
-They cost food at early game that its huge in comparation to ranger.
-♥♥♥♥♥♥ range
-Loud as hell and worse with that range.
-Slow.

A buff in range would be enought since they role its to serve as defense and they suck at that with that pitiful range i mean they have a rifle with worse accuracy than a bow ? give them the same range as ranger.

We need a reason to mass soldiers during mid game, becouse right now theres none, rangers have a impact in game during all the phases to scout or to bait, hell even veteran rangers can defend a spot perfectly from lesser zeds.

[itssirtou]

I haven't had that kind of problems with soldiers, at least not on the first map (default difficulty). Maybe later maps have better sound carry?

Honestly sound needs to be a bit better explained.

[Smug Kot]

Originally posted by itssirtou:

I haven't had that kind of problems with soldiers, at least not on the first map (default difficulty). Maybe later maps have better sound carry?

Honestly sound needs to be a bit better explained.

The problem with soldiers its noise stacks and they are very loud, samething happens if you stack too much rangers at one point they will start doing more harm than good.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Certainly never had that problem, especially on the later maps...

[Ghostlight]

I read somewhere (so I cannot vouch for it) that 1 Soldier and 3 Snipers is the optimum setup for a Stone (or Wood) Tower.

They cost food at early game that its huge in comparation to ranger.

This alone means you simply cannot justify building them early game when Rangers cost 0 Food and Food is tight. And mid-to-late game when Food is less tight, you will have Snipers. I therefore see little scope to build them even if you specifically wanted to - except perhaps one per Stone Tower mid- to late-game as I suggested above?

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Archers are the the early game when you need to clear something quick but can't afford the aggro from the sound of firearms. Once that phase is done soldiers are tons better than archers for about anything but speed.

True but Snipers are tons better than Soldiers at this very same point, so you'd spam them instead. I always end up with Archers and Snipers clearing, and it works a treat.

[Smug Kot]

Originally posted by Ghostlight:

I read somewhere (so I cannot vouch for it) that 1 Soldier and 3 Snipers is the optimum setup for a Stone (or Wood) Tower.

They cost food at early game that its huge in comparation to ranger.

This alone means you simply cannot justify building them early game when Rangers cost 0 Food and Food is tight. And mid-to-late game when Food is less tight, you will have Snipers. I therefore see little scope to build them even if you specifically wanted to - except perhaps one per Stone Tower mid- to late-game as I suggested above?

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Archers are the the early game when you need to clear something quick but can't afford the aggro from the sound of firearms. Once that phase is done soldiers are tons better than archers for about anything but speed.

True but Snipers are tons better than Soldiers at this very same point, so you'd spam them instead. I always end up with Archers and Snipers clearing, and it works a treat.

changing the food cost for stone would be good since you arent going to use stone after getting the barracks early game.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

The whole point of soldiers is that they can take a hit. Just look at what happen to your archers with a single spitter hit. If you don't micro your archers only group then a lucky hit from numerous specials (which always happen at least once a game) and you lose a big chunk of your "firepower".

That's what the soldiers are there for. You use them forward from your snipers so they can filter those lucky hits. Archers doing the same would just either die or be in a precarious situation.

Now, why would you have the soldiers in front of your snipers? Simply because the whole point is to train them to vet then place them in towers. Isn't?

[Smug Kot]

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

The whole point of soldiers is that they can take a hit. Just look at what happen to your archers with a single spitter hit. If you don't micro your archers only group then a lucky hit from numerous specials (which always happen at least once a game) and you lose a big chunk of your "firepower".

That's what the soldiers are there for. You use them forward from your snipers so they can filter those lucky hits. Archers doing the same would just either die or be in a precarious situation.

Now, why would you have the soldiers in front of your snipers? Simply because the whole point is to train them to vet then place them in towers. Isn't?

Nah, soldiers will get rekt too becouse they range its a joke and worse they will get swarmed by runners unlike rangers with a little of micro they can clean everything isnt a harpy by just kitting.

Also if you are the point where you can mass snipers....why waste resourcers in soldiers ?
a veteran sniper will rekt everything before the zeds get close.