Is the 15 unit limit a good design choice?

I think that’s the point that @Sergej Faehrlich is trying to make - what matters is the end result of the game design, not what the intended game design was.

 

I didn't (and I don't) expect any game developer to create a perfectly balanced game engine. At some point there are going to be players exploring the fringes of a gaming system sticking their fingers in unexpected flaws. Some balancing issues might be more obvious. CBs game design, or better unit and faction design got worse over the course of N3, or at least that's what I feel about a large part of the releases since Onyx. Exploit options got more...not less...while slight adjustments could have been made "while balancing on sight". Didn't happen unfortunately...or at least it went in an upward spiral of adding ever more efficient units, trying to create balnce by adding weight on each tip of the scale, while it might have been more efficient to just try to reduce where there is too much. That's something I would have loved to see, but at the same time I can understand that it's tricky work that doesn't pay off financially and will leave a constant trail of moaning players. Letting things escalate and then offering this 15 cap sollution will bring some relief...but it's not what I would have hoped for and much depends on the final set of N4 profiles.

Still I wasn't making a point from a developer's perspective, but from what we as players percieve how the game should be played...and that's better not derived from what we think it should be, or what the fluff says... but rather from what players actually do. An "inherent" design might be intentional or not, still the game engine will determine how it "should be played"...in the sense of "play what works within the framework"...or better "play what wins games". So in N3 the game was supposed to be played this way and some players or factions did better than others. While we will be trying to find the new way of how the game should be played, this will shift.

Edit: IJW is pretty much my tl;dr...thanks for being so concise!

 

I think it didnt

 

To consider: when there is no limit to number of units, the prices a unit cost at creation is Points, SWC and position in the Combat Groups.

When the number of units are limited, the price you pay is Points, SWC, position and slot.

Tactical Window for 250+ games is adding another price value to units. It isn't necessarily that this is an artificial fix that could've been fixed better ....

 

Why, shockingly yes it did! It actually included two!

Here is the 'USARF Army List'(list #1 in the booklet):

Spoiler

USAriadna Ranger Force
──────────────────────────────────────────────────

GROUP 1
GRUNT Lieutenant Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (1 | 10)
GRUNT (Forward Observer) Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 11)
GRUNT (Forward Observer) Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 11)
DEVIL DOG Chain Rifle, Smoke Grenades + 1 K-9 Antipode / AP Heavy Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 32)
K-9 ANTIPODE AP CCW. (7)
MARAUDER Paramedic (MediKit) Rifle, Heavy Flamethrower / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (0 | 23)
FOXTROT (Forward Observer) Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 18)
MAVERICK (Forward Observer) Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 19)
VAN ZANT (Executive Order) AP Rifle / Heavy Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 39)

GROUP 2
MINUTEMAN (Forward Observer) Rifle, 2 Light Flamethrowers / Pistol, CCW. (0 | 23)
MINUTEMAN AP HMG / Pistol, CCW. (1.5 | 34)
MINUTEMAN (Forward Observer) Rifle, 2 Light Flamethrowers / Pistol, CCW. (0 | 23)
DOZER (Traktor Mul Control Device) Rifle, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 14)
TRAKTOR MUL (Total Reaction) Uragan MRL / Electric Pulse. (1 | 18)
TRAKTOR MUL Katyusha MRL / Electric Pulse. (1 | 11)
112 Light Shotgun / Pistol, CCW. (0 | 12)

5 SWC | 298 Points

Since the booklet dropped in July of 2015, that list has changed by going up 1 SWC and 2 points.

This is the "USARF Expanded Army List"(list #2):

Spoiler

USAriadna Ranger Force
──────────────────────────────────────────────────

GROUP 1
GRUNT Lieutenant Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (1 | 10)
GRUNT Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 10)
GRUNT (Forward Observer) Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 11)
MARAUDER Paramedic (MediKit) Rifle, Heavy Flamethrower / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (0 | 23)
MAVERICK (Forward Observer) Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 19)
MINUTEMAN (Forward Observer) Rifle, 2 Light Flamethrowers / Pistol, CCW. (0 | 23)
AIRBORNE RANGER Submachine Gun / Pistol, AP CC Weapon, Knife. (0 | 20)
VAN ZANT (Executive Order) AP Rifle / Heavy Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 39)
FOXTROT (Forward Observer) Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 18)
DEVIL DOG Chain Rifle, Smoke Grenades + 1 K-9 Antipode / AP Heavy Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 32)
K-9 ANTIPODE AP CCW. (7)

GROUP 2
DESPERADO Chain Rifle, Smoke Grenades / 2 Heavy Pistols, AP CC Weapon. (0 | 11)
DESPERADO Submachine Gun, Smoke Grenades / 2 Heavy Pistols, CC Weapon. (0 | 13)
HARDCASE FRONTIERSMAN Tactical Bow, Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 14)
112 Light Shotgun / Pistol, CCW. (0 | 12)
DOZER (Traktor Mul Control Device) Rifle, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 14)
TRAKTOR MUL Katyusha MRL / Electric Pulse. (1 | 11)
TRAKTOR MUL (Total Reaction) Uragan MRL / Electric Pulse. (1 | 18)

3.5 SWC | 298 Points

Again:
Went up by +1SWC(LT Grunt) and 2 pts compared to the initially printed materials.

In both instances, the +2 pts is on the Devil Dog Chain Rifle+Smoke Grenades.
List #1 is 15 models and pads out the list by having 6 Forward Observers(2 Minutemen, 2 Grunt, 1 Foxtrot, 1 Maverick{worth mentioning that this wasn't the profile included in the box, which was the Boarding Shotgun}) and the Paramedic Marauder for extra points.
List #2 is 17 models and still toting 4 Forward Observers(again that damn Maverick one!) and the Marauder Paramedic.

 

Then go play a RPG or something like Underworlds.

Because until we have 'fixed lists' or things of that nature? Any list should be viable--the whole argument that has existed around playing Infinity is "It's Not Your List, It's You". There is no way, shape, or form where it's okay to penalize a specific setup but not others while parroting that inane nonsense.

 

I agree completely. The notion that one limit on what units you can bring to the table is somehow more ”artificial” than another baffles me.

I have always seen limits like Limited Insertion as ”no more space on the dropship”. From that standpoint, a cap on the number of troopers is actually less artificial than a fixed points value. It’s just that we as tournament oriented miniature wargamers have begun to view a points system as an immutable law of nature in a rule system. It might seem strange, but other games use other metrics to achieve balance, even in tournament play.

 

I think a lot of people are worried and that ok, but they forget that the 15 limit it's an ITS limit, not rulebook. CB could fix this after a season.
I think it's a nice change to see how order cap can impact the game, especially for the usually forgotten middle ground choices.

 

If you want to argue "no more space on the dropship" to become an actual rule for tournaments and the like? Awesome!
Make it so that there's a legitimate amount of space to be taken up. Then have the slots taken correspond to the Silhouette.

 

Yes, I would very much like that. However, the idea probably shines more in campaign play. I see the 10, 15 or 20 troopers cap as a reasonable shorthand for tournament play, instead of adding an extra layer with different factions getting different dropship configurations and actually paying some form of campaign currency in order to deploy larger or additional transports.

 

It will be the standard in the rulebook (that's for sure...as far as I understood), though there will be some sort of free mode, possible also as an extra for ITS tournaments.

Edit. we had an idea for a campaign: dropship insert! Your transport only offers room for a combined Silhouette value of 25 or something...so you would have to pick your force accordingly. Stil sounds really interesting.

 

How exactly did it 'shine more in campaign play' before you added a random thing on top of it?

It's far, far more appropriate for a one-off game. 25 Silhouette value(to pull Sergej's number real quick) as a rule for the scenario, AD and Infiltration/other wacky deployment method units count against it as they still would have had to ride down on the dropship before the battle to get into position or remained on the dropship to be deployed as necessary.

For a campaign game, you'd have to figure out a whole other thing entirely picking up a 'strike force' on a ship in orbit or a base on the ground and then pick from that for said missions.

 

No..? It feels like there's an attempted insult or something there. Regardless...

Infinity operates better (more fun, faster) with a smaller number of troops. Hence the cap of 15 being added.

"If you want to spam then go play..."

 

Hmmm, I don't see what you mean by a random thing. Perhaps you could be more specific. Of course a campaign system is not formed entirely from one single element, but I suppose you understand that.

At this point i am hesitant as to whether you are attempting to engage in meaningful conversation, or if you are simply naysaying for its own sake. I think you make some valid points from time to time, but the way you present them often comes across as quite hostile, which somewhat detracts from the impression.

To attempt to answer your question, as far as I can understand it (and ignoring the fact that I believe it to be primarily a rather crude attempt to be dismissive of someone you do not agree with, again for its own sake), I am a firm believer that a campaign game can only be meaningful if it contains elements of resource management, preferably on several levels. In this case I was referring to the notion that yes, while you would have a pool of troops to select from for each mission, your means of actually getting them to an area of operations can also be a resource to be managed. This will especially be true if your campaign system involves having several operations that take place simultaneously (in game time) so that you have to allocate your transportation resources appropriately. In such a campaign available transport resources, fuel etc can also provide the "artificial" limit to how many battles can be fought per campaign turn.

 

Suggesting you go play a RPG or Underworlds is a semi-snarky way to tell you that you seem to need someone else to tell you how to actually play in order to have fun.

Underworlds more/less is just you picking a faction and a 'strategy' via the cards you put into your objective and upgrade/ploy decks. It legitimately is the most fun I've had in a long time.

Cool, then what are you going to do to make up for factions that are intended to play with larger numbers of troops?
I posted the two USARF lists, that are literally suggested by Corvus Belli in the Army Pack which is a product still being sold by CB. Both are 15+.


What Infinity "operates better as" is opinion. The game is not necessarily "more fun" if someone is forced to rejig a list to accommodate units they had no desire to run. The game is not necessarily "faster" if the rules are still overly complex(which, let's be real here, is a big part of why Infinity games can take time. the game is not for casual play. It's a lifestyle game) but random restrictions are placed onto players.

 

I mean, that's called rules, yeah? The thing that (as rumor has it) defines a game. Or are AROs and FtF rolls stifling your USARF energy too?

 

It does seem odd to play a game company's game according to the rules they've devised, though, doesn't it?

 

Cool, so I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse or just moving goalposts but here it is:
You made a suggestion about 'space on the dropship'. I agreed with you that it would be a cool concept for tournament management going forward.

Lists are supposed to be put in fairly far in advance for tournaments, correct?
Rules packs for tournaments are available fairly far in advance for tournaments, correct?
Setting that rule as a static feature going forward(because let's be real here, the only value of such a feature is not necessarily for narrative/campaign play only and it's not like dropship models are actually a real thing for this game beyond some scenery pieces from third parties) for tournaments would be a far, far more fair and reasonable way of bringing about a balancing act and encouraging list diversity than some nonsense about capping the number of models.

I do not really mind about being perceived as "hostile" or not at this juncture. This community is and always has been home to a very toxic element. That many of them like to continually paint me as an example of 'the problem' is just a bonus these days! We outright had people being dismissive of someone presenting a concern about a very real issue in this day and age with regards to potentially problematic iconography being used and people jumped down their throat.

I was less being 'dismissive' of your concept, but dismissive of the fact that you posted the initial idea and then when I agreed with it as a bit for managing tournaments instead of some arbitrary cap on the number of models(which, bluntly, is not a great concept)?

You chose to then act as though it's something that could only work for narrative play and add some extra caveats on top of the initial idea to showcase why you think it would be more narrative/campaign play.
The idea of 'space on the dropship' is something I would frigging welcome. A set amount of Silhouette alongside of the normal SWC and points? That's an A+ concept for the game, and while it might need some finessing with regards to things with weird deployment concepts?

Your initial concept was far, far superior to anything CB has put out in awhile that I can recall. It's an idea that does what people claim this does:
Opens up variety with list-building.
It does not, however, screw over specific factions with an arbitrary cap on the number of models they can field.

Go check the lists I posted again. Those are verbatim the lists published by Corvus Belli themselves as a way to expand the army in the USARF Army Pack. One is 15 models and the other is 17.
The only difference to them was +1 SWC on the Grunt Lieutenant and +2 points on the Devil Dog with Chain Rifle. And the lists still come in under 300 points.

So remind me again, who wrote the rules? Pretty sure I didn't. Pretty sure it was Corvus Belli.
BUT WHY WOULD THEY SUGGEST SO MANY MODELS!?!
...maybe cause the faction is supposed to have them.

 

This is obviously already a known quantity to current season tactical window players, but there's going to be a real art in N4 to making good secondary combat groups - ones that bounce well at 4-6 orders and contribute something useful without risking those orders being left dead in a turn. I really like the Marauder Haris + two Infiltrating Grunts version Marduck posted before as a punchy version of this kind of group. I'm interested to see what other ways to run secondary groups people come up with.

 

It’s always possible that, after time and consideration, they decided that this was not a fun and healthy long term direction for the game. Just because they wrote a sample 17 order 300 point army list doesn’t mean that they can never change the rules and faction designs.