An video in relax mode by ash from gmg. The Week in Wargaming - Gnarlwood's design, Infinity ITS 14 thoughts and more!
A video on the ITS pack by Dek of Corner Case. Infinity Tournament Packs are AWESOME For Hooking New Players. ITS14 Unboxing.
New video of The Dice Abide show, focus on the Arizona Armageddon event. Late Night Wargames - Episode 109: Surviving Arizona Armageddon
New stats video from Headchimie. https://www.reddit.com/r/InfinityTheGame/comments/z29b4i/infinity_n4_stats/ He also made a small post of synthesis:
Cannot be. We have a complete thread in the nomads subforum with arguments worth filling several books that playing CA is the Infinity-equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot before running a marathon. That is actually very nice to hear and fits my experience. It is a powerful way to play, no question. But it´s also so unfun to play by both executer and opponent, that it is just.... not played that much. That throws a very nice light on the (tournament-)environment
While the army is definitely very very strong/optimized, the success of CA might also be an example of selection bias. Most of the CA players I've known have been of very high skill- totally subjective, but of a decent sample size on two continents. It's always felt like a tool that more out-of-the-box thinkers are drawn to, at least since N3. Anyone else feel like that, in your experience of player skill by faction?
Maybe it´s a little bit of both, or in other words: IF the success of CA is bound to be played by "hig skilled players", then: why are players with a high skill play CA in the first place? Maybe because a high skilled player is able to see the (warning: overexaggerated) overpowerness in the variety and strong units of CA, whilest some lower skilled players just got carried by the profiles (again, in simple terms speaking). My experince is, that veteran (high skilled players) make the army run they want to play. One of the most skilled players in my META defenetly made the more underdog factions work.
I may have missed it but did the mention the least played or did poorly in spite of having many players?
Additionally, although maybe I am wrong with this, didn’t this data does not acknowledge the latest tournaments after the CA got hit with nerfs (read, points increase) on some of their most cheap ways to get orders while at the same time making his biggest threat be more expensive? A 45% to 55% win ratio IS a balanced game in my criteria. Specially when such game is not static, and keeps evolving as we have thanks to constant updates to the Army.
The Data surggests a fairly balanced game. The unusual part is the consistency of Vanilla Combined Army to get upper half or even upper 30% in regards to all other factions and one could imagine that they have to many very good choises. I played Shasvastii in my last tournament and after watching the Video I thought ok what would I gain if I played Vanilla insted and the awnser is A LOT. For example not paying 32pts and 1scw for smoke, instead get smoke down for "free" with Daturazi and getting a cheap Libertos for the midfield. And my list would "only" lose Jaith Haris (that is disgustingly expensive even with wildcards) so I guess my List would "play" better in more circumstances (ea easyer to playas well) as a vanilla CA list, and that should not be the case. Sadly I do not have any ideas how to remedy this.
I know I am being Captain Obvious with this, but the problem comes that the game was designed to be played with Vanilla Factions first, and only later sectorials were included into the equations. And maybe I am wrong, the game feels more healthy when it is focused more on Sectorials and less on Vanillas. All the vanillas have a problem with profile bloat, which makes some profiles to be never ever used in Vanilla because you have an alternative for the same cost, but better/more specialised, or cheaper with similar functionality. And the vanillas have a problem with differentiation, Hidden Deployment is widely available in one sort or another for all the vanillas except Ariadna for example. Sectorials instead brings not only a more carefully selected choice of profiles available. They also provide differentiation. A game versus Shasvasti feels absolutely different in comparison with a game versus Morat. And it feels even more different when played against Starmada. But you could make a list with CA and except some “notes of differentiation” you could make more or less list with 0-12. Zeta Instead of Avatar, Pavarti instead of Dr. Worm, Varangians instead of Daturazi, Plasma/MSR Lynxes instead of Noctifers… I think the point get across of what I try to imply. A possible, although I may afraid to be unpopular, solution is to move away from Vanilla all together in the scene consciously from Corvus Belli. Leaving it as something that belongs to Code One or its N4 alternative if it ever gets made. And letting ITS to purely be a sectorial thing. Of course splatting those few profiles that does not belong to a sectorial already into its most fitting one, so no one is left behind with discarded models that can not longer be used. But I am an outsider of the company who does not know what is economically feasible for the game and just a player, so take this just at it is: An opinion
Vanilla is a stronger option for almost all factions (with the only exception been PanOceania), there is no remedy to this because what makes vanilla is the ability to choose from all the options available to the faction. Technically the way Shasvastii and MO have models that are not available to Vanilla is the only way to fix it, but then Vanilla stops been vanilla and becomes the "overarching sectorial"
And in my opinion there's nothing wrong with that. Especially since there would be very few of sectorial-unique units. Combination of AVA and unit restrictions would be a good thing.
And taking a few Mercs out of Vanilla. Libertos, Diggers, Beasthunters, MBHs, and to a certain extent Knauf, though he is not as undercosted as the rest. There are remedies. If too much variety is the problem, take out some of the redundant and undercosted variety (Libertos, in case I wasn't clear enough). It's not like you don't have the option. There are also other ways to reduce vanilla power without taking out entire units. Restrict AVA of powerful units. Make more loadouts only accessible to Sectorials. Don't throw every new Merc profile you create into every vanilla army. Bixie was a good start.
Oh yes, sectorial-exclusive loadouts. In particular those with command skills: Lieutenant, CoC, NCO, Number 2, Strategos, bonus orders or CTs. It makes sense for an army that constantly trains and acts together to have more cohesive and robust command structure than a ragtag bunch composed for the mission from whoever was at hand. So yeah, your vanilla list will be very flexible unit-wise, but will have access only to less capable/more obvious lieutenants, with less backup to fall back on.
Also allowing a second Haris to all factions instead of taking a Core link would strengthen those sectorials that have crappy Cores and great Harises. This would help boost them a bit vs. vanilla.
Spoiler: False argument (even "joking") answer BTW, that's a complete misrepresentation of the Nomad forums' consensus on balance, and a false dichotomy as well. The consensus is "Corregidor is overoptimized." CA could also be overoptimized, and posters trying to say that because CA is overoptimized Corregidor is -not- are just trying an obvious and poorly-handled distraction tactic.
A second Haris, a second Core, adding skills to fireteams, the new fireteams rules are quite flexible and they can be developed further in the future, but I can see why they started conservative on launce.
