im not sure if I get your question right, anyhow. the direct prompt is very limited (max 3K words). so I had to use a txt. still this was really roughly done in 90 minutes. parse a text, save to txt. test some prompts. launch the final prompt adjust via 3-4 reprompts. job done. quick and dirty! there are a lot of flaws in this result such as: - GPT is not best in math ;) - GPT maybe puts some topics / issues together where differentiating would make sense - GPT counts post from the same user (as asked for) - emotions, irony and sarcasm and resulting importance isn't reflected - loss of informations due to summary - ... if someone does have questions or propositions to the prompt regarding this feedback thread and enabling / supporting CB to use it in a better / more efficient way I would like to get your propositions and questions. 1.) "what does the count say, when every issue is only counted once per user"? "... CHAT GPT: Having reviewed the forum content discussing the "Reinforcements" game mode in "Infinity" by Corvus Belli from posts #1 to #434, I have compiled a list of unique issues mentioned by the players. In this analysis, each issue is counted only once per user, even if the user repeats the issue in multiple posts. Here's the final comprehensive list: Drop Pod Marker Mechanics Unique Users Mentioning: 15 Description: Players are confused about the rules and in-game impact of drop pod markers, including their placement and physical properties on the game board. Limited Options for NA2 Factions Unique Users Mentioning: 7 Description: Concerns about the lack of variety and strength in reinforcement options available to Non-Aligned Armies, leading to perceived imbalance. Mandatory Commlink Unit Requirement Unique Users Mentioning: 18 Description: Frustration with the compulsory inclusion of a Commlink unit in army lists, affecting strategic flexibility and seen as an unnecessary point tax. Mission Balance Issues Unique Users Mentioning: 12 Description: Worries that the reinforcement mechanics could disrupt the balance in specific mission types, potentially favoring one player over another. General Game Balance and Strategy Unique Users Mentioning: 4 Description: Broad concerns about how the reinforcements mechanic affects overall game dynamics, strategy, and pacing. Commlink Unit Tax Concerns Unique Users Mentioning: 5 Description: Players express dissatisfaction with the additional cost (points and SWC) imposed by mandatory Commlink units. Limited Impact of Reinforcements in Certain Scenarios Unique Users Mentioning: 3 Description: Observations that reinforcements often arrive too late or have minimal impact in certain game scenarios. Reinforcement Trigger Mechanism Unique Users Mentioning: 3 Description: Debates and concerns over the fairness and criteria for triggering reinforcements. Commlink Role and Effectiveness Unique Users Mentioning: 3 Description: Continued debate over the role and functionality of Commlink units in the game. Reinforcement Drop Mechanics and Tactical Depth Unique Users Mentioning: 6 Description: Concerns about the mechanics of deploying reinforcements and their impact on the game's tactical depth. Unbalanced Advantage in Reinforcement Timing Unique Users Mentioning: 4 Description: Observations that the timing of reinforcement deployment can significantly benefit one player over another. Complexity and Clarity of Rules Unique Users Mentioning: 3 Description: Some players find the rules for reinforcements too complicated or unclear, impacting game accessibility. Gameplay Disruption and Lack of Enjoyment Unique Users Mentioning: 3 Description: Concerns about the game mode disrupting traditional gameplay and not being enjoyable for some players. Faction-Specific Imbalances Unique Users Mentioning: 2 Description: Discussions about certain factions having advantages or disadvantages due to the reinforcement rules. Inconsistencies in Rule Interpretation Unique Users Mentioning: 2 Description: Issues with inconsistent interpretations of reinforcement rules across different language versions. Disappointing Reinforcement Options and Variety Unique Users Mentioning: 2 Description: Players express dissatisfaction with the limited and uninteresting options for reinforcements. Strategic Limitations and Forced Choices Unique Users Mentioning: 2 Description: Frustration over being forced into specific strategic choices due to the reinforcement rules. This comprehensive list, with counts based on unique user mentions, provides a more accurate representation of the community's collective concerns and feedback on the "Reinforcements" mode in "Infinity." " please take it as it is: an impulse an orientation and food for thoughts and maybe for some of us: a refocus on the topic - feedback to reinforcements ;)
Make no mistake I deeply appreciate your effort in this, what I comment is that I feel some entries, for example commlinks (and the "tax"), were more prevalent than the numbers shown, but this could be the criteria chosen for distribution by the AI or might be me remembering and aggregating several discussions together.
I highly appreciate that HI (human intelligence) ist still able, willing and needed to use the assisted results coming from AI - no worry!
I get that people think reinforcements are uninteractive as they are deployed with no ARO, but so far I haven't had a single game where reinforcements would be deployable and relevant if they were ARO:able on deployment, unless you had completely obliterated the opponent's ability to ARO. Which is mighty counter-productive for a comeback mechanic...
Is there a rules update coming soon? It's been around 7-8 months and thr Reinforcements format needs a few tweaks. Speaking of tweaks, are there any rules/profiles updates for the main N4 game coming soon addressing the most egregious/underpowered units?
One minor and specific thing I just wanna reiterate again is Vanilla Haqqislam having 2 Haris teams available, which was introduced for use with reinforcements. Cool for sure, but there is an issue in that it's actually impossible to construct a legal Haqqislam Reinforcements section that has two valid haris teams. This is the cheapest possible double haris Haqqislam Reinforcements section I can build, and obviously it's too expensive, ────────────────────────────────────────────────── 6 SEKBAN REINF. Heavy Rocket Launcher, Chain-colt(+1B) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (1.5 | 21) KORSAN REINF. Chain Rifle(+2B) / Heavy Pistol, Shock CC Weapon. (0 | 14) KORSAN REINF. Chain Rifle(+2B) / Heavy Pistol, Shock CC Weapon. (0 | 14) SEKBAN REINF. (Specialist Operative) AP Rifle, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 24) HAFZA REINF. Rifle, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 15) RAFIQ REMOTE REINF. Rifle, Light Shotgun, Flash Pulse / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 14) 1.5 SWC | 102 Points Open in Infinity Army Maybe this was just a typo on CB's part, but it's something that would be nice to have quickly fixed in the update they are planning.
Update dropped. vCA will be keeping those really useful +0 options and Ariadna has make due with +2 options :). Triggering reinforcements with less than 100p casulties remains possibility if you field a small reinforcement group so I guess that I was right?
I signed up just to post feedback. I saw the updates to Reinforcements, and feel like this is not enough to make my group try Reinforcements again. We tried it when it came out (I personally tried 5 or so games), and the consensus was that there were some interesting parts, but we felt it was just not fun and detracted from the game. The main issue was primarily: No AROs. This meant that when the Reinforcements dropped, your guys were in exactly the right position, and holding the centre of the board is actually BAD, and will get you punished. A lot of the games I or my group played (maybe 50% of the time), the 1st 2 rounds mattered very little on what happened, it was all about the last turn where the reinforcements came down. Having such a huge swing mechanic just seems bad - it feels like giving each player another alpha in the last 3rd of the game, where you can't really prepare for it. Because of no ARO, Hacking & repeaters with reinforcements also seemed OP - You can literally deploy a repeater in the open, staring at someone within 8", and the opponent is now in repeater range with no counter play besides being 8" from the centre. Removing area control relevance for the first 2 turns, and basically outclassing parachutists, reduced the fun of the game in general. Even if the games were sometimes fun, we all agreed they were not as fun as normal Infinity. This mid-game deployment no ARO change also breaks the normal rules (compared to parachutist, Hidden, etc), which is just more mental load and incongruity that makes the game more complicated (more exceptions), and combined with the above, more frustrating. It reminds me a bit of Fireteams, which feels pasted onto the main rules and just makes the game harder to understand, when alternative, more 'infinity-esque' rules exist. What I did like: Smaller start games (you only have 250 to start), while still taking larger armies is a cool idea - It helped make the games play faster, while still using 350 points, and often having 17 models cap. The second deployment took a depressingly long time sometimes, but I assume it would get faster if we played it more. This was the thing I liked the most - making games play faster while retaining the feel is a huge win in my book. Comeback mechanic was interesting - being able to deploy your reinforcements early if you get wiped the 1st 1 to 1.5 turns is interesting, and indeed give the wiped player a chance to come back. This is fine, but less a big deal, as I don't think this is a good 'fix' to the core issue of Strong Alpha strikes. Imho this is more a symptom of over-pushed models and power creep in extra orders and Active Order killing, to help balance Fireteams. The current ITS special rule of command token for extra order is more an issue, for example. Free agent rule & an ability that lets you take more than 15 models for points was interesting, a lot of people liked that. Now that it doesn't cost that many points or swc, not sure people would like it, but I guess as long as commlink stays a reinforcements only thing, I guess it's fine. New units were often fun, and New sculpts for old classics. New Azrail is awesome! Although, what I really want is a re-release of the Azrail with Fuerbach, it's my fav sculpt. Other things we didn't like: Limited pool for reinforcements meant the optimal reinforcements was VERY limited. It is very hard to make different lists optimizing to 100 pts and 2 swc given the points spreads, esp since the cheap troops in reinforcements are often 15 pts or so. You can't make a list with 4 guys that totals 87 points, because the extra 13 points is wasted, and changing things up so you can have that 5th guy is going to almost always be better. So the reinforcements ended up being very samey for each faction. Also, TAGs in the pool weren't great for most missions (unless it's points in zone), you just don't get enough orders to make them work, and TAGs in general are bad up close (see: no ARO deploying hackers & repeaters). People didn't seem to like the Merc Reinforcements. The entire mechanic doesn't work well with a majority of the missions. The same unit does different things in reinforcements. I get that this is probably done to reduce SKU bloat, so ultimately I guess it's a necessary evil, but I didn't really like it. Extra rules on an already complicated game. Even discounting the discord of how this breaks from how the normal game suggests things should be played, there is a bunch of extra rules you have to figure out, and the game already has a complexity issue with getting & keeping people in the game, when you don't play it every week (like our core group). That said, All of the above issues would likely be okay, if the ARO issue was resolved in a good way. Suggestions we thought of to fix the ARO issue: Note, reinforcements was such a dud, we never bothered to try any of these, as we just went back to playing normal Infinity, but these were the ideas we batted around: 1) Reinforcements can only deploy 4 or 8" up. THis came around because we found the games that had exclusion zones were more fun in general. No consensus on this, some liked it, some did not. 2) Allow AROs for reinforcements. Everyone agreed this made sense. It solves a lot of issues with the ARO and gameplay issue. 3) Reinforcements now deploy like a free Combined Air Drop / Parachutist, but only in your half, with a special "Drop Pod" unit like a Netrod. Retroactively change those rules so that when you combined drop, you roll once and deploy everyone within 8" of the main drop guy, and you get to move the unspent drop orders to the appropriate pool. This is similar to #2, but also makes Reinforcements more in line with the main rules, instead of some random new rule pasted on top. 4) You instead have a 'deployment' vehicle unit, that drops as a parachutist, and can move once. Then, reinforcements can come out of that vehicle like a pilot leaves a manned TAG (without being able to ARO the vehicle). This is my personal favourite idea, because it's really fluffy & simulationist, and gives options to model a cool Vehicle. You'd have to deal with how much life and armour the vehicle has, possibly with "battle ravaged" so the vehicle can't move much, possibly you get a +1 command token so you can coordinated move out of the vehicle, and what happens if the vehicles dies with units in it, but I think the current rules would be able to make appropriate vehicles without much 'new' rules needed. Overall, I don't think we'll play much of Reinforcements until the issues we have with the lack of ARO deployment is solved in some manner. The core Infinity experience is just so much more fun, and the gains of using reinforcements for the is low on the ground.
I'm usually the first one to speak up for Corvus Belli whenever I can, but this "update", while being neat for standard N4 (because new units, yeih!), is a slap in the face of this feedback thread. Literally the only thing from all the problems people have with reinforcements that was addressed is the price of Commlink troopers. Everything else was ignored. @aylw's post shows pretty well that to make reinforcements work, the mechanics of the game mode have to be reworked, not just points costs. @Koni I'm grateful you and your team did something, but this update looks even more half-hearted then the initial release. If you want to make Reinforcements work, you have to do more than this. And you don't need to look far — all the info you need is already in this thread.
Today with the update I’m now much more likely to buy some of the troops because I can now play them outside of REF. But one of the things that made me NOT like REF is because I think the distribution of new units and such was not even. Winners Yu Jing (gained all new good troops to both WB and Vanilla) Combined (gained all new great troops to both Onyx and Vanilla) Aleph (gained all new good troops to both OSS and Vanilla) O-12 (gained a few new good troops to both Starmada and Vanilla) Nomads (gained new great troops to both Bakunin, Tunguska and Vanilla) Losers NA2 (gained nothing. Edit: sorry I didn't realize White Company got Blades and Blockers. So still nothing lol) PanO (gained 2 meh troops and one good TAG to a dead Sectoral and Vanilla) Aridana (Gained one new troop to MMRF and Vanilla) Tie? Haqqislam (gained some great troops but mostly for Vanilla. QK gained great troops but they are supposedly a dead sectoral, they didn't even get the Spitfire Az)
Well, considering that what seemed to be the #1 issue on folks’ minds was the combo of SWC tax and commlink cost, starting with those and assessing from there is a sound plan. I know locally that was the primary factor preventing folks from trying the mode, so the hope now is folks will be more willing to try it.
I salute the CB for staying strong on this excellent gamemode. I can live with the commdude point & swc decrease even though it makes alpha strike more powerful. Buffing unpopular(?) sectorals with new fireteams is healthy for the game.
That was my main hangup. I like how they offered an explanation of why it was there in the first place.
I def agree that YJ (esp WB) and Aleph (less so OSS) won big time, but I also think MRRF and PanO came out looking p good as well. Blades slot in very well into a lot of NCA and SWF link teams, and duo nicely in vPanO. A lot of PanO players I've seen have had a positive reaction to them. For MRRF, the introduction of some of the reinforcements Moblots profiles really helps them out a lot, giving them a decent quality shooter. TJC also specifically won p big. The Kulak and Rounder are very nice for them, and honestly I think that's a good thing, TJC was struggling. CA, vNomads and BJC def won, but not too much imho. Yes vNomads with CoC and cheap NCO is 100% proof that their faction design space is more or less unlimited at this point, but it's not too crazy a set of additions. The Kulak CoC is honestly a pretty middling profile - I think double Moderator set ups will continue to dominate. BJC being able to link the Marspider with the Stigmaton is pretty good, but they could already do something somewhat similar with the Orphan engineer. The Rounder is def the standout addition here, and something that did not need to be as good as it is - although granted, it's not super crazy. I think the best thing CA gets out of this stuff is a cheap engineer in the Base Operator. Vector Operators also might be nice for them as cheap sweepers, but I'm not sure how much play they will see vs more classic and expensive options like Sheskiin and Nourkias. EXOs are also kind of interesting as cheap and mobile button pressers, but again, it's not too crazy. OCF, Haqqislam and O12 kinda look the same to me coming out of this. OCF kinda got shafted with the link options for Exrah. The new O12 units look mostly mid to me, and pretty unimpactful overall. QK had already got the changes when reinforcements dropped last year, and they've been very nice, but Burtuks and Korsans really don't do anything for Vanilla Haqq. Honestly it kinda feels like CB doesn't really know what to do with Haqqislam as a whole. Aside from aforementioned QK update, Blackwind was pretty insubstantial as far as rules updates go and RTF has kind of been left to languish. Most of the meta developments in the faction as a whole feel as a consequence of irl play starting back up after the end of the pandemic, and tables being more open irl, and less due to any interesting new thing CB has introduced. There's also a lot of profiles in need of help (Maggie, Khawarij, Al Fasid, Govads, Muyibs) that have been passed over as well. Despite that salt, I think I wanna say that as a whole this update has been good. It's brought up some factions that were in need of it.
QK already had the Burtuk and Korsan from when the Reinforcements already dropped. Today, they merely got the new profiles for them. As for REF Azrai'il, I'm not sold on the Spitfire version being useful in QK. the AP Spitfire in REF is but 2pts (and 0,5 SWC) cheaper than AP HMG in normal variant. Assuming the cost would stay the same, I really don't see an advantage in the Spitfire variant over HMG one. Not on a MOV 4-2 platform with normal Deployment (and not really advantageous Fireteam options). The Heavy Shotgun variant is definitely a force worth of note - but only as long as you are within its effective range. If you can land it reasonably close to the midline of the table, yeah, that makes sense - but having it walk all the way from your own deployment, well, not really. Sure, in games played on a smaller table (24x36, i.e. 150pts game) it may look different. On a very dense table (boarding action-type), it would definitely be different, but we'd be talking chainrifle paradise already.
I was really hoping to get the shotgun Azzy in QK, I think it would pair well with the Rafiq FTO and maybe a Burtuk as a Haris
