Lack Of Infantry In One Last Fight Very Hard Battle For Seattle A Critical Analysis

Hey guys, let's dive into a topic that's been bugging me – the severe lack of infantry in the One Last Fight scenario, especially the Very Hard difficulty setting in the Battle for Seattle. I mean, seriously, where are the foot soldiers? It feels like we're fighting a war of machines versus machines, and that human element, that gritty infantry combat, is sorely missed. This isn't just a minor gripe; it fundamentally changes the gameplay experience and, in my humble opinion, not for the better.

The Core Issue: Infantry's Role in Combined Arms Warfare

Infantry forms the backbone of any modern military force. They are the boots on the ground, the ones who secure territory, clear buildings, and engage in close-quarters combat. In a combined arms approach, infantry works in tandem with armored vehicles, artillery, and air support to achieve objectives. They provide crucial reconnaissance, anti-armor capabilities in urban environments, and the staying power necessary to hold ground. Think about it: tanks can crush enemy vehicles and provide fire support, but they are vulnerable in cities and forests without infantry to screen them from ambushes. Aircraft can deliver devastating strikes, but they can't hold a position. Artillery can soften up enemy defenses, but they need forward observers – usually infantry – to accurately direct fire.

In the context of a game like the Battle for Seattle, infantry should be the linchpin of any successful strategy. They should be used to secure key buildings, establish defensive positions, and screen armored vehicles from enemy infantry and anti-tank teams. Their absence creates a void, forcing players to rely almost exclusively on vehicles, which can lead to a very different, and often less engaging, gameplay experience. The gritty, tactical feel of maneuvering squads of infantry through city streets, using cover and concealment to outflank the enemy, is completely lost when infantry are scarce. We lose that sense of human-scale combat, that feeling of being part of a larger, more complex operation where every soldier's life matters. Instead, it becomes a game of attrition, where whoever has more tanks or APCs usually wins. This is a significant departure from the principles of combined arms warfare, and it detracts from the overall realism and strategic depth of the game.

The Impact on Gameplay in One Last Fight (Very Hard)

Now, let's focus on the One Last Fight scenario on Very Hard. This scenario is already challenging, with the enemy possessing superior numbers and advanced technology. The scarcity of infantry exacerbates these challenges, pushing players towards a narrow range of viable tactics. Without infantry to screen flanks and clear buildings, armored vehicles become sitting ducks for enemy anti-tank units. Urban environments, which should be ideal for infantry combat, become death traps for vehicles. Players are forced to engage in long-range tank duels, which often devolve into a tedious game of peek-a-boo around corners. The strategic depth of the scenario is diminished, as there are fewer opportunities for flanking maneuvers, ambushes, or coordinated assaults.

Consider this: a well-placed squad of infantry armed with anti-tank weapons can effectively ambush an armored column, disrupting the enemy's advance and buying valuable time for reinforcements to arrive. Similarly, infantry can clear buildings and bunkers, denying the enemy key defensive positions and opening up avenues of attack for friendly vehicles. Without infantry, these tactical options are severely limited. Players are forced to rely on direct assaults with armored vehicles, which are often costly and time-consuming. The enemy can simply dig in and wait, relying on their superior numbers and firepower to grind down the player's forces. This leads to a frustrating and often predictable gameplay experience, where the lack of infantry becomes a major obstacle to success.

Furthermore, the absence of infantry makes it more difficult to achieve the scenario's objectives. Securing and holding key locations becomes a much riskier proposition, as there are no boots on the ground to consolidate gains and defend against counterattacks. Players are forced to constantly shuttle vehicles back and forth between objectives, exposing them to enemy fire and attrition. This not only increases the difficulty of the scenario but also makes it less enjoyable. The sense of accomplishment that comes from successfully executing a well-planned infantry assault is replaced by a feeling of relief at simply surviving a series of armored engagements. This is a significant loss, as the satisfaction of overcoming a challenging scenario is a key element of the overall gameplay experience.

Why is Infantry So Important for the Battle for Seattle Setting?

The Battle for Seattle setting inherently lends itself to infantry combat. Urban environments, with their maze of streets, buildings, and alleys, are ideal for infantry operations. They provide ample cover and concealment, allowing infantry to maneuver undetected and ambush enemy forces. The close-quarters nature of urban combat also favors infantry, who can use their superior agility and situational awareness to outmaneuver armored vehicles. A game set in a bustling metropolis like Seattle should be a showcase for infantry tactics, with players using squads of soldiers to clear buildings, secure intersections, and engage in street-to-street fighting. The absence of infantry in this setting feels like a missed opportunity, a failure to capitalize on the unique characteristics of the environment.

Imagine this: Picture squads of infantry clearing skyscrapers floor by floor, engaging in intense room-to-room combat. Envision teams of snipers providing overwatch from rooftops, picking off enemy soldiers and disrupting their movements. Think about the tension of maneuvering through narrow alleyways, knowing that an enemy ambush could be lurking around any corner. These are the kinds of scenarios that make urban combat so compelling, and they are all predicated on the presence of infantry. By limiting the number of infantry units available in the Battle for Seattle, the game loses much of its potential for tactical depth and immersive gameplay. The urban landscape becomes just another backdrop for armored engagements, rather than a dynamic and challenging environment for infantry operations.

Moreover, the lack of infantry undermines the realism of the setting. Modern urban warfare is not simply a matter of tanks rolling through city streets. It is a complex and multifaceted affair, involving infantry, armored vehicles, artillery, and air support, all working in coordination. To accurately portray the Battle for Seattle, the game needs to reflect this complexity. It needs to provide players with the tools and resources necessary to conduct effective combined arms operations, including a sufficient number of infantry units. By neglecting infantry, the game creates a distorted and unrealistic depiction of urban combat, which detracts from the overall experience. It feels like a simplification of the genre, trading tactical depth for a more straightforward, vehicle-centric approach.

Possible Solutions and Recommendations

So, what can be done to address this infantry shortage? Here are a few ideas:

1. Increase Infantry Unit Availability: The most obvious solution is to simply increase the number of infantry units available in the One Last Fight scenario, particularly on Very Hard. This could be done by adding more infantry squads to the player's starting force or by providing reinforcements throughout the mission. Even a few extra squads of riflemen or anti-tank teams can make a significant difference in the overall balance of the scenario. It would allow players to diversify their tactics, exploit urban terrain more effectively, and better screen their armored vehicles from enemy ambushes.

2. Adjust Enemy Composition: Another approach is to adjust the composition of enemy forces. Instead of relying heavily on armored vehicles, the enemy could be given more infantry units, including anti-tank teams and snipers. This would force players to engage in more close-quarters combat, making infantry tactics more relevant and rewarding. It would also create a more dynamic and challenging battlefield, where players need to adapt their strategies to the specific threats they face. The increased presence of enemy infantry would incentivize players to use their own infantry more effectively, fostering a more engaging and tactically rich gameplay experience.

3. Implement Infantry-Focused Objectives: Scenario designers could also introduce objectives that specifically require the use of infantry. For example, players might be tasked with clearing a building of enemy troops or securing a specific location that is inaccessible to vehicles. This would incentivize players to prioritize infantry tactics and make the most of their limited infantry resources. It would also add variety to the gameplay, breaking up the monotony of tank-versus-tank engagements and creating opportunities for creative and daring infantry maneuvers. Objectives tailored for infantry combat would also add a layer of strategic depth to the scenario, forcing players to consider the best way to deploy their troops and achieve their goals.

4. Enhance Infantry Abilities: Enhancing the abilities of infantry units could also make them more viable in the Battle for Seattle setting. This could involve giving them better weapons, improved armor, or special abilities, such as the ability to deploy smoke grenades or lay ambushes. By making infantry more resilient and versatile, players would be more inclined to use them, even in the face of superior enemy firepower. Upgrades like these would not only improve infantry survivability but also expand their tactical capabilities, allowing them to perform a wider range of roles on the battlefield.

In Conclusion: Let's Get Some Boots on the Ground!

The lack of infantry in the One Last Fight scenario, especially on Very Hard, is a significant issue that detracts from the overall gameplay experience. By addressing this issue, the game can become more engaging, tactical, and realistic. We need more boots on the ground, guys! Let's bring the gritty infantry combat back to the Battle for Seattle and make this scenario the epic urban warfare experience it has the potential to be. I'm convinced that these changes would significantly enhance the strategic depth and player satisfaction, making the game more challenging, rewarding, and immersive.

So, what do you guys think? Am I off base here, or do you also feel the infantry pinch in One Last Fight? Let's discuss in the comments below! I'm keen to hear your thoughts and experiences on this topic. Your insights could help shape the future of the game and bring about positive changes that benefit the entire community. Let's work together to make Battle for Seattle the ultimate urban combat simulation!