1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The writing on the wall for Line Infantry

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Triumph, Feb 19, 2021.

  1. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    The issue is, how can we hurt something like a Kamau while helping something like a Fusilier.
     
    Ghost87 likes this.
  2. bkromray

    bkromray Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2021
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    42
    What about setting fire team bonuses to how many of the core models are in the team, like if you run a fusilier fire team and add one orc they would still activate together but since the team is made of four "core" units and one "flavor inchancer" they would only gain the benefit of a four man.
     
  3. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    Linking Kamau with Kamau is the obvious solution (or not slapping high-powered equipment like MSV on just one profile to bring down costs), but LI do have one inherent advantage over their competition: they're cheap. They're meant to be worse than just about anything else save REMs on their own merits. This low cost allows you to bring more fancy solo pieces, or a tough Haris. The problem is, at present, the long-range BS attack niche, especially in ARO, is absolutely dominated by Fireteams thanks to their unique, very valuable and cost-efficient buffs. With the Tactical Window cap on Orders and the lack of reliable, powerful solo pieces to spend points on in many armies (USARF is most notable for this), skimping on the Fireteam is a very inefficient design choice in your list for most factions. Just about any nerf to Fireteams in general and especially the top-shelf gunfighter links like the Kamau+Fusis or Vet Kazak+Line Kazaks makes saving points for non-Core units more viable, making space for LI gunners.

    Options off the top of my head are things like trading the gunfighting bonuses for reliable training skills like Courage and Veteran, replacing Sixth Sense with a rule preventing link members from entering the Dead state (going to Unconscious instead) while linked to stop overkill or Shock from being as large an issue and allowing Suppressive Fire while linked to increase their viability as defensive options.

    Ultimately though, this issue isn't going to fix itself without CB going back and hammering down the most egregiously bad decisions in the N4 Sectorial lists. There isn't going to be a world where taking a Riot Grrl ML in Moderators is a worse idea than using the Moderator MSR.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  4. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    5,383
    Realistically links are always going to be tricky cos they are quite a serious set of bonuses which are not reflected in individual points costs but are balanced by overall force composition options.

    And that's hard to do. Here's a big selection of minis. Okay now you only get half to pick from but they can be buffed massively for free by combining them into sub units. So how do you balance that? Tricky. Very tricky.

    A lot of people say "limit link options" and that is fair but I remember N2 and early N3 links and it was Line Trooper cores or nothing really, and they just weren't that good. Vanilla was straight up better.

    Personally I think links need to be looked at within the context of; how do we make the Sectoral feel balanced with vanilla? In a similar vein; I thought Shas did a great job there with a few Sectoral only profiles. Stuff more like that, with a bit less of an emphasis on links as The defining sectoral benefit, would be cool.
     
  5. Someone

    Someone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    38
    Help Fusilliers and hurt Kamau? You could change the bonus from a +3 to just be a BS of 15. Kamau is still better as it has better gear but the gap between the two is smaller.
     
  6. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    I'm afraid that's probably only possible by restricting mixed links. Upgrading the 17 point Fusi MSR to the 32 point Kamau MSR within the context of a full core is just a no-brainer. Changing fire team bonuses would affect both options to the same degree and the Kamau would still be the better choice every single time for what is an insignificant points increase considering the huge payoff. So the way I see it, either that Kamau can't join Fusiliers anymore or they need to remove one BS MOD from those kinds of Wildcards. Increased BS and a single +3 MOD should be more than enough incentive to upgrade the point man.

    If you want to tackle the issue of Vanilla vs Sectorials by changing fire team bonuses, I'd start with Sixth Sense because it outright removes counter play. It's fine to face that MSV2 Kamau sniper if you can put a -MOD on him with White Noise/Albedo/Surprise Attack etc.
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    This is a legitimately interesting take on the situation.

    I feel like it needs some alterations because some characters and units do still need to count towards bonuses in certain fireteams, but if for example Patsy also has a "Counts as an Orc" then she'd contribute to the Fireteam bonus in an Orc Fireteam, but not in a Kamau or Fusilier Fireteam. Would also need to change the nomenclature so that a concept of "wildcarding" and "natively joining" would separate whether they count for the "higher" fireteam bonuses or not.
    So, with Varuna as an example:
    Patsy: Counts as an Orcs, may wildcard into any Fireteam (will not count in a Fusilier link, but will count in Orc link)
    Orcs: Up to 2 may wildcard into a Fusilier Fireteam (will not count if in Fusilier link)
    Machinist: Varuna div. may natively join any Fireteam of Kamau (will count in a Kamau link)

    Arguably, this would also allow the formation of "super wildcards" for sectorials or units where such is needed. But hey, maybe this way Qiang Gao will finally have a reason to exist :p
    (This could also have some interesting indirect benefits for Triads and Enamotarchos)

    ...and then a few years later we get to complain about how only the powerhouse options are native linkers, while the native ones are "trash tier" units - which is a good thing for the forumites, wouldn't you agree?
     
  8. Ghost87

    Ghost87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    151
    Most of the time mixed link teams become imbalanced when not required to expose the weak link members which applies to defensive link teams. Imagine instead of the default Kamau MSR + 4x Combi Fusi you are only able to link point men with short (16") to medium (24") range weapons or long range but not ideal for ARO (e.g. HMG). The dynamic would be totally different. Imo the fireteam should kick ass in active but it should be avoided that it can totally lock down games in ARO while not even be required to activate once in the game. Ofc long range weapons should not be banned, but image you had only the Fusi ML or MSR, you would take it and maybe a Kamau HMG for active turn. Sounds far more interesting to me.
     
  9. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    5,383
    Making Albedo Mimetism but only for MSV would be a start, rather than it specifically not being useful vs sixth sense.
     
  10. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    At least you can use it to outmaneuver MSV by just walking past. I'd rather not cut that element from it, maybe have both effects at the same time.
     
  11. Kumatake81

    Kumatake81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2020
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    96
    What about that solution for fireteam bonuses:
    The burst bonus only activates, if a second member of the team has the same weapon and maybe LoF too (you might need to adjust the SWC of some units)
    The BS Bonus only activates if there are at least 2(3/4/5) team members with LoF

    I'm not sure this will solve more problems than create them, so what are your thoughts on this?
     
  12. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    I wouldn't mind seeing Albedo slightly toned down if it meant it was on for the entire game rather than just the first round.
     
    coleslaw likes this.
  13. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    As someone who remembers N2, I have a feeling that would turn the meta into "Do you have MSV2-3 + smoke? Yes? Your faction is powerful. Don't? It's low tier."

    Right now you can use coordinated orders to ARO-bait people in that situation, which seems like a decent amount of counterplay.
     
  14. regelridderen

    regelridderen Dismember

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    520
    Just do away with fireteams altogether, its a skirmish game after all.

    Instead limit availability further in vanilla armies e.g. No reason to offer AVA 2+ skirmishers when you’ve got 4 types to choose from.

    -

    Fireteams add nothing tactically interesting to the game. Infinity shouldn’t play like a complicated version of 40K death stars.
     
  15. Paegis

    Paegis Vincible Officer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    166
    I have to disagree. Static defensive fireteams don't add much IMO, but there are a lot of tactical considerations (on both players' sides) when your fireteam has to push up.
     
    Ghost87 likes this.
  16. regelridderen

    regelridderen Dismember

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    520
    ‘compared to the tactical considerations involved in moving single models up the field without silly bonuses?
     
  17. Paegis

    Paegis Vincible Officer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    166
    I think so. Advancing fireteams create a bulwark with a new set of strengths and weaknesses that's distinct from single units. They're harder to flank but easier to splash damage onto. They're harder to brute force, but also much harder to maneuver effectively.

    I don't think the fireteam rules are perfect as-is, but I do think fireteams are worth keeping. They give new life to models that may otherwise just be cheerleaders or would be "boring". And ultimately, I just love the thematic idea of a tight-knit squad moving up and supporting each other :stuck_out_tongue:
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  18. regelridderen

    regelridderen Dismember

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    520
    I’ll concede you this :)

    The order system in Infinity, and the 3-turn cap, sadly emphasizes less of a tactical advance and more a ‘sink all your resources into elite troops’, turning LI into ‘order monkeys’.

    Having fireteams is an okay-ish way to give these cheerleaders some degree of efficiency. If not in numbers, then in movement. Which is cool and allows them to shine.

    But when you start adding mathematical bonuses to the group, then it stops being tactical simulation and turns into being game-y (in the toy-ish GW way). And with combined fireteams it soon turns into ‘pay 40odd points to give +1B and +3BS to an elite HMG’, and so instead of allowing the line trooper to shine, it just makes it even more apparent how ‘useless’ the line troops are.

    And it’s not as if they’re particularly good for the game, more often their bonuses seem like a shortcut for newer players. Quite often you’ll see players fall apart, when you take down their team, not knowing how to apply the rest of their army, making for poor games of ‘who strikes the first blow’.

    -

    I like your idea of the tight-knit squad as well. I just prefer applying it to the whole army.
     
  19. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    630
    I just wanted to add this is a solid idea. It is important to make sure the terms are clear to understand what gives the bonus and what doesn't but the overall idea is solid imho.
     
  20. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    Hamstringing Fireteams is precisely the wrong way to go about it.
    Take a generic HI Haris of HMG, BSG and Specialist.
    Take a generic Heavy TAG.
    Picking a specific example Orc Haris vs PanO TAG.
    Orcs are freshly buffed and I love how they turned out.
    Problem remains that they are significantly more expensive than a Dragao/Jotum in any configuration of only Orcs that makes sense in a Haris.

    You can't make Orcs worth it in native Orc Links with only Orcs. Not while you also allow them to join Fusiliers as anchor piece.
    You can make Orcs worth it by averaging the cost ber Fireteam bonus down with cheaper troops.
    You can make Orcs worth it by using them to average the cost down for an elite gunner like the Aquila FTO.
    You can make Orcs worth it by adding utility that amplifies the toolbox potential you get for running a Link, i.e. the Tinbot C+ Profile.

    "Fixing" Fireteams can not be about nerfing things to the ground.
    It has to be about making the bad choices work.

    This isn't about specifically Orcs. This is true for basically all MI and HI in the game. Zuyong, Janissaries, Wu Ming, Mobile Brigada, Grenzers, Wildcats, Bolts, Zayedan, Govads, Djanbazans, Rodoks - list goes on, you name it.
    None of them work in a mono link anymore and you have to either slot them into something else or something else into them to make it worth it.
     
    #80 Teslarod, Feb 27, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
    1337Bolshevik likes this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation