Hi all, I am completing two buildings for my Infinity table, but the players and me cannot make a decision about the accesibility. More pics here The question is: you can access the platform through the handrail, and then you can go around the central core of reactors and machinery. But what do you think about accesing the roof of the building? Just nice and interesting, or something critical? My first idea was a NO, but some players say YES. That means adding some type of handrail in the platform. The other building has pretty much the same configuration. Opinions?
My vote is it's your building, you should decide how it is laid out. Tactically, no easy access point means it'll be a favorite haunt of TO infiltrators and ARO "surprises." It'll also favor climbing plus models and AD troopers. Is that something you want for the building? I'd think about the rest of the table, too. If you plan on having other tall buildings nearby, would you want a gangway to connect the rooftops?
I'd add a ladder to the rooftop but no handrail. The roof is fine as it is in my opinion and you can always add some removable scatter terrain or adds for extra cover.
Thanks for the feedback. It really helps. And another question. Two pics of the chemical plant game board (WIP, and has been ongoing for a year). I have plenty of pallets with drums, containers, garbage containers, etc... and plans to convert that transparent box in the middle in another small building. The question is: do you think are there enough big buildings and I should concentrate my efforts on more piping sections (with a smaller diameter, maybe making a 'gateway' for the road, on making more gangway sections, or more big buildings are needed?
First off, the board is looking awesome. Board density is a big topic around here, and the short version is you want a range of densities in your meta. In our shop, we have tables that are low and tables that have lots of elevation. We have sparse, open tables and tight corridor tables. By keeping the local meta tables varied, you favor player choices over list building to the particulars of the game boards. So my suggestion would be look at the other tables in your area, and try to give a still great but different experience than those. The only thing I would suggest you avoid is a table that blanks particular strategies. If you have a maze of corridors that are too short to use anything more than shotguns, that probably is going to be limiting. But a table where shotguns (or snipers) are real good is fine, as long as it isn't every table.
For me there you need at least two more big building to cut vision lanes. If not, who gies first will be able to rambo hard.
You do need more buildings and more scatter. It's way too open as it is, and you wouldn't find it a satisfactory table to play on.
Once again, thanks to everybody for the comments. I spent years playing dungeon crawling games where tactics are quite different and Infinity is still a challenge. My intention is exactly that: having areas in the board where a sniper can make a difference but having also areas where the density is higher and a sniper has no use. It involves a lot of planning, but I think it can be done. Amazing as this sounds, I live about one hour away from Corvus Belli and the Interplanetario (though this year has been obviously suspended)... and I had literally no time to check other people's tables. Yes, I have experienced that imbalance in a couple of games... bad planning, I suppose. Scatter I already have (containers, pallets, drums, trucks...). I understand that it is necessary, but there are some things I would like to expose here. I do not have the intention to start an argument between what I have seen described as the european style and the 'murricah style, but let's say you have to infiltrate a chemical plant, which is the scenario I have in mind.. It is not a shanty town, with lots of debris scattered around, plenty of corners, really narrow and retorted pathways... (that's Frostgrave or Ambush Alley). Chemical plants are usually well planned and tidy. So the challenge is how to overcome those open spaces using TO, or forcing snipers into hide using grenade launchers, or whatever. Is it possible to play and enjoy an scenario like that? But why? I mean, let's say that you love using TAGs, but the scenario is not suited for them (a swamp; or a place with narrow lanes). If the answer is no, I can add more buildings (already planned). And it would be very easy to add a lot of scatter...
So there's a good video with quick shots of several interplanterio 19 tables here: I feel like someone posted several table shots on the forum as well. But it sounds like you are going for a varied table, which seems good to me. As I say, it's about leaving choices for the players. If there is only one good way to play the table, it's a bit dry. You can and should favor X over Y, but you want the players to still be able to decide how to play it.
This would be the new look of the plant, including a set of four 'towers' and a gangway. The distances are not correct, and not everything is in the right place. The gangway would be at the same level (more or less), than the gangway accesing the reactor buildings, with the stairs on one side. The gaps you can see on this pic and the other pics in Flick will be covered with vehicles (trucks, forklift) and scatter (containers, pallets, drums). What do you think?
One additional building wouldn't hurt. Besides they look great, all the more reason to make few more ;)