Experience comes form observation, study and the quality of your opponents, this is why playing with different factions makes a player objectively better when playing against a faction they play.
An easy solution would be to simply improve common weapons. More Multi Rifles spread around, both as options for basic units, like Fusiliers/Bagh-Mari/etc, as well as basic choice for elite units, because high BS HI running around with just a Combi is underwhelming, especially since PanO units often don't have backup weapons on them. Weapon options with additional ammo/burst/etc. There's so many cool ideas to be implemented there, like Assault Shotguns, DA SMGs, etc. In particular PanO Remotes would be a logical chassis to mount good weapon upgrades on them. More Marksmanship here and there, maybe restricted to loadouts with low burst weapons, to keep it from getting oppressive to opponents (Bulleteer with Feuerbach/Marksmanship, but unable to link for balance, now that would be a good PanO tool, but I'm wishlisting here). Deactivators (which shouldn't require LoF, btw) and Sensors galore. "So you're running a cute Camo/hacking/minefield game? Let's prune it down some and fight like honest men, gun vs. gun". edit: More Mine Dispensers. Scatter mining seems like a logical tactic for a faction with below average midfield focus, but above average BS. Stick one on Mulebot, give it +1 Burst, make sure it can use its own Baggage to reload, enjoy. Stick them on some TAGs (Squalo, Jotum, Cutter), HIs (ORC, Boyg), Auxbots...
In all honesty I would just like to have a bit more capabilities to have flexible clean cores. Not like yesterday were an Orc + fusiliers + Kamaus was counting as a pure core, but a just bit more. Specially for MO, and specifically for the Crusade FT. But in all honesty I’m not even sure. The latest changes, namely for NCA and Winterfor are really non negligible, and huge props to CB!
No, remember PanO is too stupid to make something so useful, it's only the heroically scrappy Nomads who think to bring such tech to the battlefield.
It's relatively corner case. The pointman needs to both start in LOF of the target which is uncommon, and you also have to be extremely confident that they down it first try. Failure means a second try is most likely giving up the option for shots at free targets in the open. You also have to be playing against an opponent that can't have HD options that might be in range, otherwise you're giving up free shots on the pointman again with something ugly.
Yup. I don't think some people in this thread appreciate how much the one-sided interactive tools that Nomads (and a few other factions) have warp the meta and makes playing a faction the way CB clearly intended it an exercise in masochism. Frankly I get the feeling that there's a gentleman's agreement to not play something like a noninteractive list with loads of GML capability over at CB headquarters but that's not how it works out in the wild. As you mentioned, camo spam is one of the ways to deal with it but that has all sorts of other issues for the meta as a whole.
Most of the people in this thread are old players and veteran players who have played against many and varied lists and factions. It is not a lack of appreciation, we know it exists and many of us probably play also Nomads or a sectorial of them, we have just learned to deal with it, or incorporate it in our lists. I even made a MO GML based list, to prove it can be done and it worked quite well too. Beyond that, ITS stats show that at its highest in Nomads closes to be a 60% choice (much less in the sectorials) showing that while it is a strong option, it is not the universal solution.
Only some of them show the assessment of the game that comes with that. That's a surface reading of the data. How many of those ITS stats come from new players? What's the relative win rate of w/ GML and without?
We have been through this again in the past, because people do not agree with you partially or fully does not mean they are not good or experienced. That is a good question, I am not sure we can safely come to a conclusion from that, but not been almost omnipresent like some other units gives some clues about GML.
Yes, I wondered the same, it looks pretty interesting. Well said. I know a few players, not pure Pano players, who uses that approach when they want to play with Pano. Check missions and if were suitable for what they wanted to play of Pano, they choose that. Too if they know more or less how the tables could be in that particular tournament. The thing is how ITS is set, depends a lot of the missions the OT choose. Not all armies have same flexibility for list composition, so this impact really hard on how factions like Pano (vainilla and sectorials) perform. I always thought you will be able to have at least one list per mission, if not number of missions+1. I know many players are against this kind of approach because it could have the "counter effect", players could prepare a list to play against "Avatar", for example, if you believe you can in fact to prepare a list against shuch things. I´m pretty sure when you play an individual match you usually don´t feel the lack of tools you feel when you to into tournament. I know this kind of flexibility is hard to measure, but examples can be provide. As may other veteran players, I play a lot of factions. Highly Classified is hard for many armies, not only for Pano, but even when other factions struggle to have a balanced list, capable to do many objectives as possible, while having some offensive and defensive capacities they have "some tools" to mitigate the issues. Pano doesn´t. If you play, f.e. Winterforce, if you want to align Hackers, you will have expensive ones with midfield option but lack of marker state, so if you go second you probably couldn´t use the "deployment advantage", or you will have only "fusilier" or "justice k." a "meh" one or an "expensive one". Not only happens to Pano, but choices left you in a bad position to accomplish the mission or to fight back. Pano need something that brings flexibility to the table, so can be played in a way different to "flipping a coin". Could be an interesting approach indeed.
While I'm sure I'll sound repeating myself - I think the answer, again, is with utilising Remotes. They should be able to count towards pure fireteam composition, the rationale being that PanO troops operate closely with them all the time, and their integration is seamless.
A good analysis, but I will add something I've had to deal with using my NCA: dealing with the possibility of your own list being countered. NCA has a surprisingly slim set of strengths despite its good internal balance, and most lists that you can count on that will have an advantage over an opponent rely on either your poorly-supported but powerful and efficient Hackable units, or on Bolts. Playing into an opponent who can shut you out of the Hacking game either requires both your lists being Bolt-archetype or an odd skew, that you play at a disadvantage if you get matched into any Pitcher faction, or that you build lists that can handle all missions in a tournament- and lists tailored for specific missions have historically been the strongest way to build lists for competition. I eventually settled on the third option, with my current NCA tournament theory being to bring one well-built and balanced list making good use of your Hackable strengths, and one list with max-AVA Locusts to throw over the centre line if an opponent is running Nomads, ALEPH or most flavours of CA. It's a really stupid list, but boy does it take people by surprise when you put down a Shock Marksman Rifle on the other side of their screening units- mass Infiltration is one of the very few ways PanO can pull off a close-range alpha strike and exploit the Nomad weakness to assassinating their supporting units, or the CA+ALEPH shared weakness to losing their cheerleaders. Usually they'll deploy defensively against NCA and rely on their superior midfields and indirect control, so playing totally against type and rushing with your dreadful Skirmishers can buy you breathing room.
Yeah but if we do that at some point it will go back to Nomads because CB can't just not give them everything they weren't supposed to have from other factions and nobody wants Pure team Vostok coming back.
Off-topic as I am about to talk about Strategos1 which is not part of Pano Fun math times: 3 Locust attempting to deploy superior infiltration with a success scenario of at least one of them achieving their deployment 'x>0' is a Binomial distribution of 3 'n' elements with a 0,45 'p' chance -> 0.83362 or 83.36% chance. Or in more mundane terms, 5 times out of 6 you will achieve this. This strategy works amazingly well when your opponet deploys first his units, and you deploy second, as it disrupt their screening units quite well. But chances are that if you deploy first, even if you're sucessful in the sup. infiltration attempt, they're going to use some of those screening units to counterdeploy your sup. infiltrators. But what works even better? That you use Strategos 1 to hold 2 units in reserve for deployment, and then apply Superior Infiltration with two units with Infiltration (+3), one that deploys at 11 and other at 12. It turns out you have a 81.94 chance of successfuly deploy one of them, with a 33.06 chance of deploy both of them. As they're deployment reserve units your opponent will have always deployed their screening units by now, no matter if you deploy first or second. Now they only have their 1 single unit for counterdeploy your superior infiltrators. And most of the time is not a unit that is suitable for such task. Enjoy your assassinating of their supporting units / cheerleaders / almost everything in their path. This is my 0-12 Alpha (or Saladin) + Andromeda + Casanova list archetype. And it hits like a wrecking ball against the aforementioned enemies by @SpectralOwl . If you play first in initiative you can use a command token to hold 3 troops instead of 2, and try to sup. infiltrate an additional Razor with Combi and shock mines as a last effort for Sup.Inf to further increase your chances of alpha-striking with a 90.1% chance.
To be honest, while understandable to some extend, complaining that Nomads got, might get, have X is tiresome, most of the times the units in question have minimal impact on the meta and are rarely selected, and Nomads have not shown to be any massive winners in the statistics. Likewise, while I can accept the blame of starting the description of O-12 as "spicy PanO" they are not PanO, they are O-12. I prefer much more the discussion on how to improve PanO when the discussion is centered around making PanO, PanO and less when the discussion is how to make PanOceania play like another faction.
My ideas if a hard design thing has the potential of being introduced. 1. Ammo options. 2. Modifiers like - BS Attack (-3) 3. Pollock Grenades - PanOceanian Spotlight Grenades - PanO RPG Book 4. Omnia Research - Drill Grenades - Breaker + DA Grenade Launcher - Hypercorp RPG Book 5. Thunka Charges - Guided Thrown D-Charges - PanO RPG Book. 6. More Operational Theatre Based ORC Profiles 7. Same same for the new Mk2. 8. Increased Hypercorp affiliated units 9. MinesCorp - Bore Grenade (T2 Grenade) Unit Design be reflective of the whole Logistical chain supporting wide spread operations cost effectively
I apologise for my previous off-topic. Although it is an example on how something as little as giving Infiltration+3 to some key profiles such as locust, which would even be lore-adequate, would open up avenues of play that can make Pano play as Pano. After all: “Because the Locusts are a part of the dark forces which help PanOceania remain the number one power in the Sphere. A presence in the shadows that is always there, keeping the free world running with methods that, if the general public knew of, would be considered questionable and immoral.” “Enemies of Freedom” are threating your HiperCorp Tech Superiority by non-sanctioned and surely illegal hacking tech? Put your two locusts in reserve, superior infiltrate with your target of 12 both of them, and then proceed to kill the space wizard or his support network. You can also do that now with Pano, as @SpectralOwl has shown, but much less reliably. Having a little bit of nudge on reliability here and there with small tweaks would consolidate Pano plays while still being Pano. Another example, give gizmokit +1 B to some already carrying gizmokit units. You’re not affecting the general function of the unit, but now you’re suddenly making the Presence Remote of Pano much more reliable to be count on. But please put them on premium engineers such as the Curator or the Karhu, not on the blade-OPS or otherwise they would be the end-all engineer. Do the same with the Enfermerier and his medikit, turning it into medikit +1B. and suddenly now their step price would be seen as an cost opportunity for reliable ’healing’. If you do not want to add burst to the gizmokits/medikits, turn them into gizmokit (+3) or medikit (+3) so if they can not heal reliably by burst, at least they are more likely to apply the gizmokit / medikit Russian roulette from a bit more afar than usual more reliably. And finally, if Pano Economy is the Big Fish of all the human Sphere, it won’t hurt this is shown by having troops with (+SWC) on their profile, so you can show up with more Superiority Fire to the field. Or give more SWC discounts among the profiles such as the last discount the Firewall Orc received.
More MULTI weapons. Outside of the Line Troop LIs (Fusis/Crosiers/Regulares) PanO troops shouldn’t have standard Combis, they should have MULTI Rifles and Pistols, and any “Inner Hexahedron” units should have Breaker at a minimum. More Burst bonuses to weapons as well, and if we’re not going to use more MSV, more X Visors to reflect the tech of the PMC.
I'm not saying Multi weapons don't have their advantages. But that means every non-basic "Line Troop LI" goes up by 2 points for swapping a Combi for a Multi rifle (based off ORC cost difference between Combi and Multi rifle profiles). I can't find an example that would tell me the price for a Multi pistol, though I guess it might be 1pt or less (I suspect there are fractional costs in the formula...). At 5 models (let's assume we're speaking about a Limited Insertion list, and the other 5 models pack different weapons - shotguns, SWC weapons and so on), that's already 15pts extra cost. Is that what you're asking for?
