Some interesting ideas here but I’m not certain it’ll work. It’s less complicated to say if you all want to shoot or dodge, it’s essentially one aro for the entire fireteam. If you split that up then it will be more complicated. Gotcha moments usually happen when you make a mistake and your opponent capitalises on it. These moments are quite cinematic and you can learn from them. Why not? In any real sense if a team leader goes down in combat his unit have to adapt and thus takes time thus lowering their efficiency. There should be mitigating circumstances where you have veterans and the like who won’t be affected but for the most part if you put a team leader down, the team will suffer for it, morale wise if nothing else. Sixth sense does need looking at but here I’m not sure of your reasoning. If smoke went down behind my team, I’d be inclined to notify them that “somethings going on behind us”. Another issue is that coherency for a team exists for a reason. People spread across a board cannot be considered a team, rather part of a force as a whole. They may receive support from that force as they are a part of it but they will not be as effective as if they are actually with their comrades working together. There are some interesting ideas but I don’t see how it will really simplify matters. It may also exacerbate current issues as if you’re going to designate a point man and the like for buffs then players for sure will take particular units to benefit from those buffs. (This does already occur in fireteam creation). If your intent is to make fireteam weaker but more flexible then some of your suggestions could be applied without spreading the fireteam or designating new skills.
Tell that to Marker State, an ability that is much stronger and that can be relatively easily put on all your troopers by quite a few armies. Also an ability that coincidentally is somewhat kept in check by SS, as it usually comes with suprise attack and stealth. The examples you gave can be defended as feature not a bug - making sure that all sectorials have tools to fight against smoke heavy armies, even if they don't have good MSVs is not neccesairly a bad thing in itself. Why is negating tools bad?It may sound like an obtuse questions but it has at least two different answers, and depending on the answer the solutions might be very different: answer 1. negating tools combined with other bonuses makes 5mans too hard to deal with. a) I don't think that is usually true, sectorials are not dominating overall b) solution to this problem can be removing SS, but it also can be nerfing overall strength of a firertem, like removing +3 BS bonus. They certainly wont be too strong without it. answer 2. it makes fighting against fireteams boring, as there is little to do than to confront them head on. if this is the problem then removing SS might be the right solution, but an even better one might be creating tools specifically against link teams. Smoke and surprise attack are plenty useful. Those who can take it anyway. If we want to make the game more about different approaches, why not add some stuff to hacking and jammers that would make them a "tool" to deal with fireteams. I think that different tools to use against different challenges would make the game better than making everything susceptible to the same tools.
In real life fireteam arent stuck in a 10 foot bubble around someone, but also in real life they're all shooting at the same time, so dont be upset that the pointman is gonna run ahead of the team, possibly up to the enemy DZ, the Overwatch is gonna "overwatch" and the support are gonna go for the objectives. They'll function like a team in so much as the GitS crew functions as a team, their all communicating. People dont like the idea of fireteams functioning like coordinated orders and honestly fireteam play should be easier not harder. Lastly, just cause you like gotchya moments doesnt mean everyone else does and it's something that can only happen to a sectorial player because it's a fireteam. So this is a sectorial vs vanilla issue.
An apex ARO unit that can lock down a table because 1a. Sixth sense means that I can't use the various tricks of the game to remove that piece. Surprise attack, shooting through a 0-vis zone, flanking the unit, etc all are nullified by that one skill. (Early N4, I played against an unlinked MSV sniper, and throwing up white noise before rounding the corner to get the -6 against that model felt like an awesome move I pulled. There's no point in attempting that against a linked sniper, he ignores the penalties.) It might be good to keep things like the 360 vision mentioned by some, so that not all the tricks work, but I feel having the full 6th sense nullifies too many of the tricks of the game. 1b. Elite unites wildcarding in means that too many of the options feel the same when glancing at the lists. "Oh, there's the sniper + 3 mooks & a paramedic." "No, I also threw in a HI pointman!" "Ok, Remind me, is this sectorial Pan-O, YuJing, Ariadna, HB, Corregidor, or MAF?"
Well which is it, do we want more realistic or more simple. Realism would mean team members do different AROs. It would mean they are not limited to moving in a bubble around one guy, it would mean that even if their CO went down their effectiveness in a fight would not deteriorate (dont ever say any american special ops individual's effectiveness deteriorates because anyone was lost again, they dont switch to semiauto or lose their accuracy but hey this is a game with poor comparisons to real life and too many people have complained about the possibility of fireteams functioning realistically). As far as teams being spread apart, ain't no fireteam member walking around in CQB with a Missile Launcher. Let fire teams function more like Spec Ops team, they keep their overwatch guy on the radio giving then updates and vice versa while 2-4 of them roam through a building. The smoke thing meant was dont remove the -6 penalty for shooting through smoke. People already do choose the best option for a point man, that's why I said fireteam options need to be looked at.
Ah the old get good motto, well, I guess the counter argument is reduce the AVA of vanilla factions critical troops from sectorials to 1 or 0. Accept, adapt, overcome. From CBs standpoint, fireteams and higher AVA make for good sales, you can work out the math on the liklihood of which we'll get.
In real life the fireteam will perform as a unit as that is what they’re trained to do. They may or may not all shoot at the same time but they certainly won’t let someone run up on their own unsupported. For an example see WW2 for how paratroopers deployed and functioned. The overwatch team will overwatch (and they’ll be a team together much like a heavy machine gun or mortar team) and the advance squad will aim for the objectives. The point is that they’ll do this as a team together and rely on the support of other teams. In this respect core, haris and duo are a semi decent representation. The fireteams should function as a coordinated order as that is what they are trained to do. A sniper team will essentially be a duo, a mortar team a haris and the advance squad a core. There will be variations on this depending on mission parameters. Now if a fireteam loses its command there will be those that can deal with the loss and continue to function (for which there are profiles representing this in game) and there are also teams where there will be no overall command and so loss of a team leader will not fully impact the functionality of the team. The morale will suffer no matter what as you’re human. It may not suffer until after the battle but it will affect your troops. For the most part, losing any team member can and will affect the effectiveness of a general fireteam. See my above statement on how fire teams work. The gotcha moment only affecting a sectorial is appropriate considering the overall strengths of fire teams within sectorials. It’s not ideal but it does make fireteam users need to think. In vanilla it’s less of an issue as the list isn’t as tied together. Realism doesn’t need to be complex. If each member of the fireteam acrid on their own aro and dodged, shot or idled, that’s not entirely more difficult than the whole team performing the same action, all that would be applied would be the results of each fire team members aro. I don’t really see how that’s more complex. This may indeed be useful but there are even in our current era, technologies that make smoke less effective. A -3 penalty for those with better capabilities for dealing with smoke may be better. Very much so. Though there are things that require looking at and I hope CB have them in the upcoming rules for fireteams. This can also be said of vanilla though. One more thing… @wuji those that respond to you and disagree aren’t necessarily attacking you. It is possible to disagree in good faith. Stop taking it so personally.
For everything above, you'll really have to square all those caveats away with CB. I proposed those limited be cause they wouldnt require changing anything else. If people dont like and suggest modifications to those, well, then we get what you just described above, lots of other changes that CB would have to account for. As for telling you not to say that again, you saying that if the team leader goes down they would lose their effectiveness in real life like how Infinity's fireteams lose their bonuses? Well, it's a game, and you were talking about real life soldiers as a comparison, and you said it "as matter of factly", whether you meant it or not, its disrespectful in a couple of different ways. I wont sit here and lecture in detail but a firefight involving trained men isn't like Infinity, Infinity is like a movie. We'll stop there...
Yes. If a team leader goes down and the team isn’t trained to deal with the loss then the teams effectiveness as a whole is decreased. The leader could be carrying battle plans, have intel that only they are privy to, be leading a squad that’s relatively green… there’s a number of factors that will dictate how the team operates. Even veterans are affected by the loss of team mates. I state it matter if factory as I have read a large number of books detailing the subject. These are available to the general public and are incredibly interesting. I don’t find it disrespectful to state fact. These things have and do happen and are represented in Wargames in a number of ways because despite it being a game, it still has real world applications and comparisons. Unless you think that every hollywood movie or game is disrespectful to real world soldiers, I’m not sure how your argument holds up here. In the same vein then is it disrespectful to play certain factions in historical games because they did unpleasant things in real life? You’ve again taken my statement personally which is quite fascinating. If you want to call it here that’s fine by me but I must disagree in totality with the way in which you believe a team should function.
I can only say for myself: A feeling on unfairness for the opponent. This might not seem like much but it can have a negative effect for new players and just getting your ass handed to you over and over again by them. The leader and the team gains abilities for no cost in pts and SWC and even negates bad skills for no cost (Frenzy). The cost could be said that they need to be close to the link leader. But is that really that much of a cost? They can also loose the ability if the leader goes down. That can be a big IF. I also don't think the supposed "lack of variety" is much of a cost as well. I've been Move together (order efficiency) for ALL is already very nice. Up to 5 with one order is already better than non-team. +1 B on leader when active. +1 B to ALL of them when in ARO. Sixth Sense on leader Active, on ALL of them in ARO. +3 BS on leader Active, on ALL of them in ARO. +3 Bonus to Discover on leader Active, on ALL of them in ARO. Not only does the the leader get these bonuses but then ALL of them do in ARO. That's a huge benefit. What do you think the cost would be if these skills would be given to one guy in Vanilla even if it's a temporary thing? I'm not exactly sure what could be changed to at least make a "payment" for the skills. I wouldn't mind a comeback of one figure must have the skill but I think it would be better if there was some sort of Overall tax for forming a fireteam. One idea is: Must use a Command Token at the beginning of the game for each fireteam formed. They must also be used to reform fireteams per normal. It's a resource that's spent as payment for having the team. There's now also more incentive to take Lt. that provide +1 Command Token. Frenzy must not be ignored!
That logic can also be used to argue that AVA is bad for the game and faction sectioning is poor. After all, since there's camouflage markers in all factions, why should I not be allowed to put my Jotums into a Fireteam Core with 3 Warcors and BIT? Camouflage is placed on a designed unit with attention having been put to details regading what abilities these units have, how many each faction is allowed to bring, etc. You can argue that the same can be said for Fireteams, but I'm arguing they got it wrong. I'm not saying it's a bug. I'm saying it's a bad feature. Like I wrote, I think this is a bad balance point. It is introducing a bunch of negative play experience in order to buff sectorials to the point where they are balanced. I personally think fireteams in general are quite fun to play with and offer a bunch of focus - and importantly, limitations - to collecting and list building so I play sectorials almost exclusively, but I don't think the Cores specifically are good for the game nor do I enjoy how heavily sectorials tend to lean on them. I find I enjoy the late stages of games the most, when we're picking up the scraps and the Cores have been smashed into smaller pieces. What I'm looking for is a balance point for sectorials where Cores are not necessary (either by being detrimental or being removed). (By comparison, Enomotarchos being so uncommon I think would be perfectly fine and fluffy for them to still have Sixth Sense)
I wouldn't argue that they carefuly designed fireteam composition. I would argue that this part "Camouflage is placed on a designed unit with attention having been put to details regading what abilities these units have, how many each faction is allowed to bring" is severely not convincing. Here I could argue that what actually introduces negative player experience is smoke trick and camo eaasily blowing pretty much any aro piece that isn't Atalanta. And SS mitigates that. I was not there, I didnt hear any rumours but I am moderately certain that smoke trick was precisely the reason SS was added to links when they created them. Anyway, let's take a step back and try to focus on what we agree on, cause I feel it's plenty. It seems that we both think that there is just too much stuff cramped into cores, and sectorials lean on them way too much to be competetive. Totally agree. I just would go another way about it than removing SS. Since people are talking about solutions anyway let me whip up something. How I would do it: 1, Anyone with duo can link with duo, haris with haris and core with core. 2. Duo/Core2 - as now but adds SS (since buddies can work together to not get surprised easily) Haris/Core3 - as now but +SS (as above) Core4 - everybody gets courage (buddies are watching you and watching your back) Core5 - you get a spare body in your link, that's it. 3. Special rule - Full Squad: If your core is 5 of the same troop you get +3 BS. (Personally I don't feel the need for this rule, but special weapon LI boxes and 4xHI boxes gotta sell themselves) Results: - easier fireteam composition, no charts needed - core, and full core are less useful, and are no longer be all end all of sectorials - Haris and duos are more useful, to balance it out. - So for example if someone deicdes to take a haris and a 3-man core, he is not gimping himself. - If you really want to you can take old style paintrain 5xKnights or 5xalguaciles defensive core to the table, but you don't get the benefit of all the juicy link mixing - in overall meta all camo list is slightly less appealing (due to all the SS) - which I believe to be a good thing.
Seems we don't agree on much at all. Either that or you're taking playing Devil's Advocate a wee bit far.
Fair enough. Different people different perspectives. Fortunately there are no stakes at all on us agreeing or disagreeing :)
What things seem to be boiling down to is: 1. Fireteams in themselves are too strong 2. Sectorials as a greater whole are too weak These two issues are not mutually exclusive. What it indicates is that a fireteam rework really needs to be a sectorial rework. I agree with the sentiment that using fireteams as a crutch for sectorial design is only harmful and ultimately limiting to the game.
I like core fireteams. And even if I find them really cumbersome to move, this just balances their bonuses for me. If I want to have all bonuses I have to invest 5 places in my list, pay the points, have a hatd time moving them and know that loosing one in the team reduces my bonuses. If I want just order efficiency I can field multiple Duos...
Yeah I would say not only are they not mutually exclusive, but they're a linked (pun intended) problem. The buffs that lift middling units up enough to make them playable when you put them in fireteams are the same bonuses that make already great units OP. I really feel this. I use Cores in every sectorial I play (Sval: Fusiliers w/ Orc, WB: Zhanshi w/ Shang Ji, TAK: Line Kazak w/ Vet Kazak). The inherent design of them means it's tempting to make that great gun platform and then spend the early game trying to figure out how to plink away at the enemy... but that's also the problem. Core's are unwieldy to move so you usually put a long range weapon on one guy and try to hide the rest of the link. They are inherently "expensive" since you you're paying for 5 figures to get the full bonus, so you'll always lean on cheap seat-fillers to keep the total cost down, which just reinforces the importance of the point man to get things done. As such, they frequently tend to look and feel same-y compared to a Duo or Haris that feel like they can be built more different ways and do more things. Cores tend to railroad you into a particular play style, and the nature of the bonuses means your opponent gets likewise railroaded into dealing with them in a particular way. After the opening salvos if your Core has been reduced by a couple guys, maybe you start pushing it forward and hope to grab an objective or something, and that's when things really start to get interesting.
I think we need to think about reality. CB is NOT going to make big changes without a new edition. They don't seem to do things like that out of the blue without a big thing to go along with it. Even JSA moving came with the Uprising book. I think most of whatever they do is going to be clarifications and no actual changes. But if their is changes it's not going to be ground breaking. Well intentionally...
