I've had a similar opinion for a while now. Unit classifications feel really arbitrary the more you think about them. There's not a single trait that is shared amongst all unit types, with the exception of REMS and TAGS, everyone else is just a mix of stuff with a type slapped in. It gets even worse with stuff like Line Troops, Veteran troops and whatnot. It's just a mess. This is one point that I really think should be removed from the game altogether. Again, with the exception of the REM and TAG classifications that actually do something.
You're getting types and classifications confused, Type is Light infantry, MI, HI, TAG, REM and Warbands; whether or not these carry specific rules with them they do have common design principles, archetypes, and rules associated with them. so that if someone says HI they are almost universally hackable, E/M vulnerable, 4-4 mov, 4+ arm, and generally upped stats. or MI being around Arm 3, 4-2, etc. Warbands having frenzy or impetuous, a dtw and smoke grenades. Type provides a useful and quick way to relay general concepts and profile expectations. Classifications (Garrison, line, spec trained, vet, elite, HQ, mechanised, support and character)on the other hand, mean nothing and do very little outside of some niche ITS stuff with the only remotely useful one being character, and in general just add confusion especially when veteran is involved. Classifications need to disappear in the addition change.
I don't think he was: there's almost as many if not more non-Hackable, <4 ARM or not 4-4 Mov HI as there are ones who fit how you define the archetype; the amount of 4-4 MI is getting ridiculous; there's a mass of Frenzy or Impetuous LI with Chain Rifles (Ghazi and Kuang-Shi for a start); and several Warbands without Smoke. Types are pretty much screwy now. It gets worse because classifications are also pretty much screwy. @Mahtamori I think you've slightly mischaracterised my position. I don't think to be an X faction you need the single best X profile or unit. Nobody thinks of PanO (overall) as an LI faction despite having Kamau and Zulu Cobras (two excellent profiles that between them are sufficient to perform. Most functions in a game); or conversely nobody disagrees that PanO is still the TAG faction despite, arguably, O-12, Aleph and CA all getting a better TAG. Rather it's about ensuring that a large proportion of the optimal faction builds lean into a variety of X archetypes. I think Haqq (in general, but less QK) does this well actually: its very much the faction of LI super soldiers supported by LI filler. Even things like triple Fiday HB leans heavily into their LI to function (specifically Mutts and Daylami). Added to that their plethora highly usable Dr+ (which is essentially unique to Haqq) and it very much retains the feel of 'LI and Drs'.
Thats more an Identity issue, similar to factions and sectorials where purpose and archetypes have been lost more than anything. Some of the things you mentioned are fairly new and more exception than the rule, though that is slowly changing for the worse.
Which was what I understood to be @DaRedOne 's point: the designation of Types feels increasingly arbitrary (because the design focus is increasingly lost).
I'm not sure we're on the same wave length, but I think you've managed to tie the two conversations together - Kamau is a LI that behaves like traditional MI (fancy gear, seldom moving too far from DZ, relatively sturdy for a 1w troop) while Zulu Cobra behaves like Skirmishers (start slightly up board and has Marker state). Few I know will say Varuna in particular is very Light Infantry heavy because their LI don't behave like LI, but I wouldn't be ashamed to call them "Blue Nomads" as a short-hand for how they play. Haqq on the other hand, much like Ariadna, relies on their LI. You've got a variety of cost-effective LI that guarantees interaction with them on a level that transcends your typical "hunt down their orders" (similarly having 2 messenger remotes doesn't tend to make people call it a REM list). That's even if you consider Muttas to be Warbands, you're still gonna see a bunch of Daylami, a few assorted Doctor+ LI, a couple of hackers of some description and probably Bashis - all of which are going to be actively used or get in your face and in your way. That said, it is a difficult topic because of how mudded CB has made their definitions, and I rewrote the post a few times. Might be my original point got lost. Please, see it as tangential from your point rather than representing it.
What about allowing MSV1 to shoot through smoke with a -3 penalty? What about giving MSV3 triangulated fire?
I think a -6 Penalty would work well for MSV1. This is the same penalty they get now from an MSV2 trooper shooting them through Smoke and a -3 would quite often result in their being on flats (+3 for range, -3 for Smoke). Either way you'd need to do a lot of rebalancing. Lots of factions are balanced around the rarity of MSV2 and the relative ubiquity of Smoke. I like MSV3 as it is. I just think it needs to be costed better.
I actually hate current MSV3 on the units that have it; the auto-discover's neat but you're still burning half an order in a list burdened by a 60+ point elite gunner eating half the pool unless you're doing this in reactive, and ignoring surprise from camo is only ever helpful in reactive. Meanwhile, MSV3 is only found on top-end active-turn killers designed when their key equipment piece actually made them more efficient by not requiring them to waste Orders on Discover. I'd really prefer MSV3 to be given a more noticeable active-turn role (like shooting through Markers or Eclipse Smoke, or allowing increased Burst on Discover to clear lots of markers at once) at its current price, or else redistributed to things like the Nisse and Yaogat that can more fully benefit from the existing rule.
First thing MSV3 should get is a cost discount (I won't be going into the exact numbers, but it's fairly easy to dalculate where it should be). This alone would make it more fieldable. And yes, it could use another small buff on top of that. Shooting through Eclipse with a penalty should work well. I also like the suggestion of allowing MSV1 to shoot through standard Smoke with a penalty; it would indeed be a revolutionary change for many factions - both with MSV and with Smoke - but it could work. It'd increase the impact of MSV1 troopers while reducing the impact of Smoke-totting Warbands, and given that a lot of the former are punching below and latter - above their cost, it'd work out fine for the balance. The final lineup after changes would be pretty straightforward, too. MSV1 - reduce vismod penalties by 3, shoot through smoke at -6 MSV2 - reduce vismod penalties by 6, shoot through smoke with no penalty MSV3 - reduce vismod penalties by 6, shoot through smoke with no penalty and through eclipse at -6, autodiscover.
Eclipse is a bad mechanic that should disappear from the game. It goes against the concept of player interaction and for that reason it should have been eliminated in N3. It would have been interesting if was only handed at shooty armies with no access to normal smoke, but instead it has been given to expert CC troops making them extremely efficient. Regarding MSV3, reversing engineering a Hsien profile to become an Aquila shows MSV2 -> MSV3 is just 4 pts at max. I wouldn't say that's so expensive for the skill granted. And even in the case of accepting a cost reduction you could expect cutting 2 pts at best. It's that so significant to make a fuss over that skill? Keeping in mind two of the three units equipped with it can join links and in the case of the FTO Aquila can join full cores thus potentiating the skill with the increased firepower. And let's not forget the factions with these units are already doing very well according to ITS data. Therefore the last thing they need is more help.
I'm going to be very blunt here, MSV3 isn't that overpriced. The units that have them are priced on par with comparable units with MSV2 and compared in a void I'd prefer the current Aquila over the current Hsien - they're the same price but MSV3 and BS15 is better than MA1, PH14 and a Nanopulser for most games. As harsh as this might sound; have some perspective and rein in those expectations. Particularly the Aquila HMG has nothing to complain about, it's the one unit with MSV3 that has the most suitable gear and gun for what it is paying for it. The HMG profile is as lean as a premium HI can ever be expected to be with almost everything focused on doing that one job you brought them along to do. What's ailing are the profiles with shorter range weapons such as Multi Rifle or the Asura in general, but guess what - this isn't unique to MSV3, this is a struggle that most anything with a premium price tag and short range guns face, be they Asura, Hsien, or Mowang. We're talking about a performance that merits a couple of points drop at most in the current environment. It's important points, make no mistake, but not a very big room for excessively fancy stuff. My gut instincts tell me that shooting through Eclipse would require a hefty points increase to all profiles with MSV3, regardless of MOD.
Eclipse is largely fine, it is just some of the platforms it comes on, no one is complaining about Massacre, the Guarda de Assaulto or Machaon where they are on expensive low ava platforms where its protecting something valuable. A platform like the Makaul, on the other hand highlights your problem in that it's cheap plentiful and always taken allowing for half the table to get smoked (this is also a problem that standard smoke and warbands cause). Eclipse is one of those pieces of kit that should rare and only one platforms that aren't spammable, so it becomes a tactical tool as opposed to a way for your army to completely ignore your opponent.
If anything Smoke on a Makaul would be just as bad or worse because of how well it would synergise with MSV2 Triads. MSV2 is comparatively infrequently used defensively outside of very specific factions: for a large number of match ups there’s no difference between Eclipse and regular Smoke, for many more Eclipse is LESS useful than regular Smoke because MSV2 is primarily being used actively. I’d argue that any issue with Eclipse becoming increasingly important is really a reflection of how strong SSL2 + MSV2 + Sniper rangebands are combination: taken together they remove most standard counters. But absolutely Eclipse would need to be rebalanced if MSV1 was able to shoot through Smoke. It would become MUCH more important overnight (as would White Noise).
I think MSV 1 allowing shooting through smoke with a penalty is totally needed. MSV 1 undervalued and it would "hopefully" decrease the "necessity" of MSV 2. Smoke is a super powerful rule, and honestly MSV 1 is not that common. And with the exception of PanO, it would give a great reason for MSV 1 unit use. For MSV 3, I love my Aquila HMG, but people keep saying its over costed. But it works for me.
Tbh, I think the feeling that MSV1 is undervalued can be fixed through more terrain rules and a change to the default for the very common holo-ads; instead of blocking LOF they could default to be Low Vis areas giving MSV1 models a sudden huge influx of places where they can stack, for lack of better description, get Mimetism through positioning. But it almost seems like CB is addressing it the other way around - by making sure all new releases have a huge number of mimetic units. That said, I think for a new edition exploring whether smoke grenades shouldn't be either Poor Vis Zones or their own "Poor Vis but not 'Poor Vis'" Zone (so that it stacks with regular Poor Vis) might create more interesting games. Removing visibility MODs on Dodge might be necessary. While I like the ad hoc visibility denial of smoke, there is a very real risk that it dominates games too much, effectively obsoleting ARO as a game mechanic.
Yeah, if I could take a Spitfire Gao Rael + Makaul + Kamael triad, knowing that the MSV2 Rael can fire without mods through the Makaul templates, I'd be doing that all day.
Thats what we do in my home meta, along with the addition of forests/jungles that are low vis + saturation, and since we made that change I've never regretted taking MSV1. It also makes tables much more tactically interesting.
