And while having three companies per battalion (plus logistic, support, staff...) is kind-of a modern standard, it is not set in stone. So we can have more companies. Or less. Then a number of battalions per regiment. Personally, I think CB calls types of units "regiments", while actual organization (outside of the scope of what we see on Infinity tabletop) would be by brigade. And in frontline combat, by brigade combat team. With maybe divisonal command staff & divisional assets in support. But I have no proof ;) - and I digress :)
You seem to be intrested in fluff to the exclusion of any other consideration, so yes. I'm curious if you have any kind of cogent points related to the actual gameplay of the faction, which is what this threat is about. Absolutely nothing you've said is actually relevant to the topic at hand.
And rather basic common sense, yes. To be honest, no, not in N4 over the last couple years. Never played PanO myself, and my meta for the last few years did not contain any PanO players. In N2 and N3 it was a different story, but I understeand it is not something you're asking for. But then, I have no idea what would count as a "cogent" point for you. Keep in mind this works both ways, though.
Yeah, flexible forces on the field, more ‘traditional’ ones for training, promotions, logistics. Also interesting to note that, outside of HI, fluff-wise PanO has the combination of best tech + best production base on the whole Sphere. We only get to see a fraction of that on the table.
Yeah. And it's not that easy to translate fluff into gameplay in a balanced way. Even so, there's so many ideas how to make PanO more interesting - because this, not power level, is the issue - to play without making it unbalanced. All it needs is someone to pick up on it.
I suppose I'm not sold on the merit of this as an objective. N4 already dumped a lot of that, I'm told, and where we stand now fluff heavily connecting to gameplay is only definitely true for Ariadna and PanO, who are the only factions (excluding NAAs) to have major unit restrictions owing to fluff. Aleph and Combined Army never had any meaningful limitations to begin with, and the Nomads certainly no longer have any. Those are the three most popular armies in the game at the moment; people have a clear revealed preference for the factions without limitations. O-12 and Haqq I could see arguments for both ways - given that HB is now somehow a Heavy Infantry sectorial with a solid native TAG option (vanilla has three TAGs and a whole page of HI) I could see a case that it's been heavily eroded. I don't really know if O-12 had any clear design restrictions other than "units are specialized"; they are, but that's less impactful than "you can't have X at all". And even though Ariadnia lacks native hackers and many high-tech units, the impact that has on their capabilities isn't as big as the scope of the restrictions suggest. I can only speak for Kosmo (which is better off than the other sectorial), but my experience has been that Volkolak are better than normal HI. They can't be hacked, and not being able to medkit them is more than made up for by TI preventing them from being nuked in one hit by DA/EXP/Mono. Dogged + TI bears have about the durability of a TAG in some respect, and while they don't fill the artillery roll, Kosmo has other options for that (UKR and Volk HMG in a link team). Or the Chernobog. So at least in terms of the most modern stuff, it's a bit of a question mark. You could argue that the fluff integration is well done in Kosmo - the only hacker is still a mercenary, but you have enough alternatives and workarounds that you don't feel the limitations. Alternatively you could argue that the restrictions are merely superficial at that point. Comparing most modern to most modern, Military Orders is clearly struggling, both in tournament data (if you pay attention to that) and list desgin (the whole faction is dependent on three units to function at all). So all of that is a very long way of saying that - arguably - fluff influencing army design is already mostly dead, and the best thing to do for PanOceania is to make it all dead. It's the hardest bonus to reflect on the table, because the game is predicated on the idea of both players having identical resources and it runs directly contrary to that. Of course, CB doesn't even try, with most of the tricks used to cheat the price of units (SMGs, profile bonuses, etc) being more common elsewhere. I actually wonder what someone with no knowledge of the lore would think of each army if they learned each faction mechanically with no information on what it was "supposed" to be. I think PanO would probably be tagged as something like Frontier America (with mechs) - unsophisticated, with some decent skirmishers but lower technology overall, and also a marksmanship fetish. I think they'd get pretty close to nailing JSA, and would guess that Haqq was a very high-tech faction based on the Asawira, very good doctors, and lack of any obvious technical shortcomings. But pointedly not the quality of gameplay, which is the only relevant factor here. Genuinely anything based in considerations of gameplay, not trotting out the same "but ackshually in my visual novels PanOceania is bad at everything!" as you have so far. Lets try some examples: On the topic of paratroopers a useful response might be something like: "While combat jump troops would provide an effective counter to null-deployed hacking lists, they would create an overly oppressive matchup against non-hacking army lists (some description) which rely on null-deployment as a countermeasure against HMG/HRMC models which they can't reliably beat in a FtF roll, moving the problem around rather than solving this." Notice how is it far superior the response of: "In my comic book they're fat and retarded so they can't do that." This response is only superficially relevant to the actual topic, and is an transparent attempt to freeze discussion and force conversation to another matter entirely.
As far as fluff goes, PanOceania has resources, manufacturing, logistics, Yu Jing their biggest rival is a one system empire (plus some mixed systems), PanO is a 3 systems empire plus almost all Svalarheima and the rest of the mixed systems. At this point how well and technologically superior equipment can be is not a matter of if it can be done, but logistics and economics, I can see any PanO general seeing how much a robotics force would cost to produce, maintain and keep combat worthy and think: "yeah, that is not going to happen...".
They live in a post-scarcity economy, and robotics is already more cost-effective in scale manufacturing. With Geists being near-human-capability AI available on a personal basis, arguably a Fusilier represents a greater commitment of resources in training, equipment and pay than a Pathfinder. Big upsides for human soldiers in PanO would be public image and relations, as well as protection from catastrophic network failures like big hacks or destruction of key infrastructure causing outages in combat zones. Representing an overwhelming economic advantage in play would be difficult to say the least under the current ruleset, so I tend to be in favour of giving them something new. The tier-list analysis that got some discussion recently focused on a vulnerability to Moran-on-roof Hacking and bad luck dropping key active gunfighters, so maybe opting for more effective recovery and resistance to failure on our big gunfighters could be good? SWF also seems to have a few units exploring the implementation of Voodootech- maybe leave out expensive human tech, but build the faction into taking a few of the CA's otherwise-exclusive toys? A wide implementation of tools like Plasma and K1 weaponry, Protheion knights, or Mnemonica Joan but keeping the current poor midfield and lack of Warbands would provide an interesting alternative to both the elite human factions and CA itself while preserving the current playstyle and adding a fair amount of firepower to make currently-unused units more appealing.
Where is infinity ever described as post scarcity? In fact tesseum and neomaterials are often cited as source for conflict
RPG book, I think? It's been a while since I looked it up, but most materials not on the cutting edge or R&D (or Silk) are apparently very affordable. Edit; at least in PanO and Yu Jing. Nomads and Ariadna have a lot more trouble, and Haqq are still terraforming to fully exploit their planet.
Vast resources yes, but not post scarcity, else Ateks would not be an issue for PanOceania, again it is not an issue of know how or capability, PanO already manufactures such units for Aleph and O-12, it is the economy of scale and support, Aleph keeps an eye on her robotic troops, PanOceania needs to do so manually on a local level. Voodoo tech and other esoteric technology would be interesting to see been explored.
Post scarcity does not mean scarcity has been eliminated for all goods. A society can be considered at a stage of post scarcity but still waging wars over whatever un-obtanium is in the narrative setting. Post scarcity is more about robots are making my nikes not some asian kid in a sweatshop and my fucking frozen veggies from woolies aren't $5 a kilo.
Not to derail a topic - will simply changing costs help matters? If PanO has more manufacturing, will, for example, cutting the costs of every rem bot by 33% will be enough? Will that meaningfully do anything to the faction and it's sectorials? I am finishing my MO models and am stuck in list building hell, because every LI is obvious, everything costs a lot of points and with no Trinitarians I lack cheap specialists. And, while mulling over the idea of ditching some knights for bots, I thought to myself, what if PanO had simply same bots, but cheaper? No new rules, no new stats, just suddenly Peacemaker with H.Shotgun was 16 pts. What then?
Armbots costs should generally be looked into, I'm very curious how Peacemaker costs what it costs when compared to Moonrakers. But I don't think that unearned discounts are a solution at any point. As I've posted a few times already, in my opinion the solution would be 1) better integration of Remotes into PanO fireteams, to expand ft capabilities while keeping costs down; 2) introduction of more loadouts, particularly for Armbots (but Pathfinder with RF wouldn't be out of line), and 3) more Auxbot types, because the justication of PMC looking at them and going "nah we don't like them" is just plain s...illy.
While I agree in general with the notion of discounts should be deserved, MO is so, so, sooo expensive! Apart from Crosiers, the only other core team is Hospitallers and man, how I love spending 150 of my points on one core fireteam with full bonuses. Even our Wildcards are bananas. So, it just pushes me to the Crosiers core, otherwise I struggle to break ten orders and cover the bases. Pretty much the only list that I have with Hospitaller core that breaks 10 orders is the list, where half the list are remotes - Sierra, MuleBot evo hacker, Fugazi and Pathfinder with Curator to babysit them should they break. This allowed me to cram in an astounding Crosier Harris and left me with... Three specialists, one Doctor, one Engineer and one Hacker. Not the most exciting of list building processes, I must confess. :)
We started to see some Voodoo tech with the Vargar’s K1. More would be nice, but limited to units like the Vargar, who are described as the guards of PanO!s own “Black Labs”.
Aestheticlly, the setting isn't post-scarcity, even if you could argue that ghiests mean that it "should" be. The genre is post-cyberpunk, which tends to have the same themes about, among other things, megacorporations, corporate & personal greed and similar economic activites which don't gel with post-scarcity fiction. Oh, and the plot of Halo is also stapled in there for some reason. Kinda weird, but that was always about M̷̬̪̣͎̰̎̿̑͆͜͠j̵̯̫̣̳͚̤̖̏́̎͑ó̴͍͕̭̞̩̣̋l̶̢̛͈̭̺̯̺͓̻͂͠ͅn̶̳̟̾̏̚i̸̙̟̞̲̠̭̙͇̇̿̉̈̊̅̚r̵̺̫͚̾͆̔͛̔̅̔̉͜ ̷̨̗͕̞̖̩̓̀́̓̊̈̔͌̕R̵̹̘͉̣̤̹͚̖͐̇̿ë̷̯́͛͋̊̐͒́̋́͝ĉ̸̺͓̻̅̔͑̅ờ̵͕̺̓͌́̈́̑̕̕̚ǹ̸͉̘̤̩̭̳̟͇̩ͅ ̴̲̞̞̳́̿́̏͝7̴̛͇͈̃͑̑̇̿̊ ̷̢̛̖͖͖͆̉̇̊̕͝ not Cortana. More pointedly, it's a toy solider game, and CB seems to be especially interested in selling character; an army of drones flys aginst that market placement. But more relevantly, a robotic army is already only practical if you are reasonably confident you have the best hackers. PanO has bad and/or overpriced hackers, so all of the discussions of robots are largely pointless. The army is already arguably overly dependent on TAGs in the status quo. Then are we going to get rid of the elsewhere? They're already ubiquitous in the form of UPGRADE programs in Combined and Nomads. Discounting gunfighting units isn't breaking new ground. You take it as a trade peice if you were going to already, and at that specific price you'd considering adding one or two. But I don't think lists would change dramatically, because the scope of "questions" you can "answer" with the current REM lineup doesn't change. In the specific case of MO, I think you might be more likely to see lists go to 15 orders with i.e. cheaper-than-pre-nerf Bulleteers. But you still need the Trinitarians for scoring and dealing with repeaters, you still need the Tikblang or KotHS as a top-end shooter that doesn't get outranged like a spitfire, you still need the Black Friar to deal with smoke, and so on. Yeah, that's a seperate problem the army has, on top of the generic PanO issues. Either specific to MO, or just an outgrowth of being a Heavy Infantry focused sectorial in an edition where those are overpriced, and without the tools that IA gets (tactical awareness, Daoying is a lot better than the KC) that seem intended to let you just try to play one combat group and sort of make it work. Seriously they're just not worth it. You have one core and one harris, so you probably want the Teuton Harris (NCO, tinbot, Specialist) or a mixed harris with something like De Ferson, a Bulleteer, and an OS hacker (but that's also really expensive). Then a defensive core team, possibly hiding the KC.
On that note, let's be clear that they are an attractive option in one of the worst performing sectorials in the game. That doesn't mean there is a problem with them and probably means that sectorial needs to be buffed.
On this point, that's actually addressed in the old Repeater fluff- they're used to limit the reach of a network specifically to bring the scale down to node vs. node. An Interventor is a serious challenge for a Fusilier Hacker, but would be killed almost instantly if they actually connected to Maya and tried to take on ALEPH and Metatron mano-a-mano. Factions not named Yu Jing or the Combined Army are only meant to be able to engage PanO on even terms in small-scale conflicts, because the actual PanO Military-Industrial Complex as a whole could flatten any other faction if they ever got an excuse that would fly with O12. I genuinely do want Nomads to be able to enjoy their Hacking superiority, just not in my DZ at the top of Turn 1. I've got an old Nomad army myself. One of my old favourite suggestions actually played into the above fluff- putting old-style Redrum or Lightning on EVO REMs and nothing else. Those drones are meant to be an open channel right back to Command, and trying to hack around them should by fluff be idiotic. Balance it out by the fact the things are unarmed, slow, unlinkable and easy to kill so you can't really advance them, and you have a solid reason not to dive Pitchers willy-nilly without giving up the apparently-intended Hacking balance.
It's a little hard to say because of CB's costing on part of the FD/Infiltration varies wildly with little rhyme or reason, but the Moonrakers look like they're getting the Rokot package with the 1 use camo/deployment that literally costs 1 point. Moonrakers are quite slimmed down points wise compared to a Peacemaker, personally I believe it's largely to do with the lack of a repeater which is 4 points and they're also not paying for some otherwise mostly dud stats on a relatively static throwaway piece like 6-4 MOV and WIP13. If you take the repeater off the Peacemaker it's paying 16pts for a BS12 platform with a Heavy Shotgun, if it had a combi it'd be 15pts. If you look at its other stats its pretty much in the ballpark to be somewhere in the realms of being accurately costed if you assume its paying 2-4 points for its FD+8, which again the cost on that skill is all over the place CB just kind of do whatever the hell they feel like.
