Honestly, for me a big thing is that with all the "new! new! new!" it keeps feeling more and more like THIS is the game they want to have, not what Infinity was before. I don't know if that statement makes sense, but it becomes exceedingly telling what is a pre-random Link Team nonsense and post. And the lists from before that timeframe, IMO, really need some major overhauls that simply throwing these link team bandaids won't address.
Big blocks of mostly unused profiles are just a trap for new players. But, at the same time, we don't want another Santiago.
Yeah, I'm a bit worried about homogenization with this whole concept of everyone getting a core link team + strong long range profile and/or a wildcard. I mean, even the new Tohaa (SC) are getting a Triad that is essentially a core fire team with a smaller foot print now. I know these fireteams do play differently to a degree, given their members have different loadouts and equipment, but I'm a bit worried that along the way, the factions' identities will be reduced to "what does your core fireteam excel at".
My worry here is that aggressive links are becoming even more prolific thanks to the sheer nonsense of Fireteam rules against basically everything that isn't a Warband, despite the fact they are walking rules snarls and take five times longer to move than a solo piece. Main reason I haven't taken a Bolt link yet myself, though the Haris goes a long way to fixing that problem. There are still some things a Core can't do though; I got into NCA thanks to the increased AVA on Hexas and the presence of the Swiss and Uhlan, none of which will ever get a fireteam and all of which are awesome and a notable part of the faction.
Making every faction the same is the lazyshortcut to having good balance. Eg Yuri's Revenge info Red Alert 3 or vanilla WoW and everything after them giving shamans to the alliance and Paladins to the horde.
Sectorials still feel plenty unique to me, I'd actually be happy if certain Factions didn't feel completely different from their Vanilla Faction. Certain mechanics shouldn't be Faction/Sectorial exclusive either. LoL is such a shitty rule the game as a whole would be better off with CoC available to everyone. Now that we have it might as well give it to CA and Nomads. Ae established Chain of Command is the most normal thing there is in a proper military structure. There are a few new concept like Helots, an inverted Warband, which make for great additions to the game. On the flipside there is the implementation of Counter Intelligence, FAT2 and the current Frequency of Wildcards that are detrimental to the Game. For example FAT2 would have been useful as a gunnery skill for low B weapons and or unlinked Profiles like Sniper Rifles, Ojotniks or even MK12 and Marksmanrifles to get away from defaulting to Spitfires and HMGs on your main gunners. But instead we're about to see B5 guns with half a crit per Order. Not a fan. I'm quite happy with where PanO, Varuna and SAA are at the moment, so take that with a grain of salt.
Remember the days of ... a little over a year ago, when mixed links were almost completely an ISS thing? When to get a BS16-17 HMG you had to take an entire core of HI? Remember the days of people taking an entire Mobile Brigada pain train instead of just throwing the HMG into an Alguaciles link? Honestly that’s where I think that the game started to derail. But now we have Vet Kazaks getting the full link bonuses for 36 extra points. Don’t get me wrong, I like the Wildcard system and the variety of links and the variety of models that it supports. I just think the balance is a bit off. Having your best gunfighters (aforementioned Vet Kazaks, Kamau, etc) as Wildcards just encourages you to minmax the hell out of your cheap core. I like NCAs wildcard system a lot better, all the Wildcards are utility models that are not the main feature of the link. Black Friars, Bipandra, even the MR Aquila are things that add to capability, not become the main selling point of the link.
Not to disregard your points or concerns regarding mixed links and the like, but I do like that the game changes at a relatively rapid pace. I mean, I feel like your first sentence could apply to nearly all the major overhauls or design pivots this game has recieved since N1.
I disagree with you on this. For a startoff it's objectively NOT too early to have opinions on Varuna, OSS and TAK, they've already been played a lot (including at top tournaments). And, while the circumstances of games, terrain etc do matter, do does the raw maths on some units. And that raw maths has certainly been trending in one direction recently. Now, the impact on BALANCE is questionable (especially now) thanks to all factions getting "in on the game". But to argue that it's "too early" to have an opinion on what is, already, the fact of power creep in the game is simply denialism.
Disagree if you must but, not all armies have wildcard or mixed units treatment to have a steady and reliable data for conclusions and no conclusions can or should be reached on if the game is better or not from them.
...lol? "Not all armies have wildcard or mixed units" is a bit of a misnomer. "Not all armies currently have wildcard or mixed units" is the appropriate statement. Because at this point the likelihood is higher than not that "all armies" will have them.
What I'm meaning in the statement you highlighted isn't that the game is changing or design pivots--it's that they keep conveniently 'forgetting' to bring the stuff that they seemed to struggle with before forward. Merovingia is a good example of this--they kept talking for ages about how they weren't sure how to bring them forward as a "unique" force.
There will never be enough data to be truly objective about this. Player skill, terrain, dice, meta and mission choice all contribute equally if not more than the relative strength of armies. How do you separate those elements out of any statistical analysis? So let’s leave out any pretension of being objective. Forums are a place to share opinions and discuss. It is my opinion that strong gunnery models such as Vet Kazaks and Kamau being given Wildcard status is a mistake. Wildcard as a rule is an excellent addition and I love the versatility it brings to sectorials. I’m not complaining about the Voronin Wildcard or the Bipandra Wildcard. My issue is strictly with models that under previous design considerations required a significant investment of points to get the fireteam bonuses now get them much cheaper. For example, a Mobile Brigada HMG currently can only achieve the full core bonuses in Corregidor by dragging along 4 other Brigada. While this is a very capable link indeed, it’s also very expensive and limits your other excellent choices in Corregidor. Contrast this with what will happen in a couple weeks, where that Brigada HMG will be able to have the same set of bonuses for less than 1/3 of the price. Those 80-90 points saved buy a lot of value in pieces that do more important things than stand and provide link bonuses. For reference, that’s an extra Tomcat, Moran AND Intruder. AD, specialists, area denial, and gunfighting. And that’s (subjectively, to me) a better list. Same bonuses for the HMG with more utility. My thoughts, my opinions.
Well, usually an infantry leader has more important things to do with his time than best utilize a machine gun. That's why I rarely take an HMG LT, even when it is an option. But yes, the special ops community almost always lugs an M60 or 7.62 Minimi around, because that much firepower is vital to break contact. That's closer to accurate, I think. Though by fluff the Spitfire uses a different caliber of ammo than the combirifle, so it's not quite a perfect analogy. Agree with this. I'd really like to know what the heck is going on with the Merovingian Rapid Response Force!
That can easily be green tip 5.56 instead of regular. My experience with machinguns limits to shooting Negev and Mag, sadly never had the opportunity to shoot american and german. I try to visualize them with stuff i have experience with, it makes the choices much more simple and clear for list building and FtF. Combi: Shortened M16 with Meprolight Marcksman Rifle: M4 with ACOG Spitfire/RedFury: Kind of a Negev but more compact with drum magazine HMG: Mag Multi HMG: M2 LGL: M203 HGL: MK19 MSR: SR15 MSV1 units i just imagine them with regular NVG or Aquila/Lior sights and MSV2 with thermal. Its not very creative, but it keeps the game much much simpler Edit: my guilty pleasure is thinking of the Matador every time i use the ML.
Green tip (M855 to the US, SS109 for the rest of NATO) is "regular". And it sucks anyway. Shortened M16 is an M4. A marksman rifle is closer to the M14 EBR or SDM-R (which is an M16 platform, the M4 has a shorter effective range). Multi ammo doesn't have a good modern equivalent, but there are explosive .50 rounds. HGL is closer to a mortar (60mm? that seems kind of big but the only two models with it are TAGs, and in theory they could mount a 120mm), the Mk19 is just an M203 (40mm) that fires at a cyclic rate (and it is glorious to behold). I imagine all the sniper rifles in Infinity as an M82/M107 (.50 rifle), with Multi variants having access to explosive rounds.
Green tip burn slower and have heavier bullet, witch in a M4 that has a higher twist rate than the M16 has a flater arc, that makes it easier to shoot at a regular distance of 350mts with precision. M16 with shortened barrel and regular tip ammo wasn't used over 150mts. I choose the M4 for the MMR because has the same rate of fire that the M16.... and never had a M14 in my hands (i always thought the M14 was 7.62 anyway, more in the Ojotnik zone). The Multi HMG is also only in Tags and a almost Tag HI, so thats why the M2, we had similar thinking there. I see you imagine everything much heavier and devastating.
