1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Does anyone else strongly dislike playing fireteams?

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Challenger, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Unique profiles are a great tool though. The LT Shukra and Sup Infil Andromeda are some of the things pushing me to OperationS over vanilla lists some of the time.
     
    Xeurian likes this.
  2. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    Yeah, I like that. If vanilla didn't have the most elite/exclusive units and/or profiles of each sectorial, that'd be helpful to making them more unique. Gwailos, for example.
     
    Palomides, Xeurian, Barrogh and 2 others like this.
  3. Palomides

    Palomides Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    306
    I've long thought this is a necessary change for balance purposes, even ignoring questions of links.

    If the Mukhtar is available only in RTF, it doesn't need to be balanced against the Djanbazan in vanilla. If Ghazi exist only in HB, they don't need to be balanced in light of Djanbazan, Khawarij, and Mukhtar. This wouldn't be introducing unique rules, but rather sharpening the distinctions already present between sectorials.
     
    Section9 and Barrogh like this.
  4. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    1,605
    I actually agree as well, but you would need to limit it to one or two profiles at most. Otherwise, Vanilla just becomes another sectorial without any of the cool, unique units.
     
  5. Palomides

    Palomides Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    306
    The appeal of vanilla would have to be running bog-standard infantry: Ghulam, Janissaries, and the like. Sectorials would offer focused, interesting niches. In contrast, vanilla would be cheap, effective, and flexible.
     
  6. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    1,605
    That doesn't sound very appealing, honestly. It seems like Vanilla would just become the "spam" army of whatever faction it is. At least with CA, we have the Aspects.
     
    Challenger and Aspect Graviton like this.
  7. barakiel

    barakiel Echo Bravo Master Sergeant
    Warcor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    I guess the issue I see there is that those units are the ones that need fireteams the most.

    If you discard fireteams, a lot of units and profiles in the game might as well not exist. Standard linetroopers serve no purpose, since REMS and warbands are typically cheaper, and have more utility. Line trooper heavy weapon profiles would certainly never be used, and might as well not exist either. The same is true for Medium Infantry and Heavy Infantry rifle profiles... Simply taking an HMG is virtually always a better use for the elite cost and abilities of these kinds of units, and even so, something like a TR bot tends to be a better, more versatile, more resilient, less expensive gunner than the MI or HI they contend with.

    The biggest part of Vanilla's appeal is cherry picking the very best stuff, mashing it in a list with other stuff, and creating a force that leverages the strengths of those unique, idealized units.
     
  8. DaRedOne

    DaRedOne Morat Warrior Philosopher
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    1,927
    Every time I see a discussion about 'Fireteams being bad' or 'Remove fireteams' I get a little aprehensive.

    My main army's only real draw is a large variety of fireteams. And some sectorials really need fireteams to be playable. Sure, there are ways to make a sectorial that works (mostly) without fireteams, as Shasvastii has shown, but applying this design concept over the whole game would mean losing something.

    I like playing fireteams. I use them regularly and find them fun. I agree the game should have a balance between fireteams/sectorials and vanilla armies, but I don't see removing fireteams as a good thing.
     
  9. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    1,278
    You'd be more likely to see "Vanilla gets unlimited coordinated orders, 2nd edition style" than see the removal of fireteams, if you ask me.
     
    Abrilete likes this.
  10. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    930
    As far as I'm concerned, the issue with Fireteam power is that we have to trust CB's design team to think a bit. When I first got into Infinity a bit over a year ago, there was no great concern over anything as severe as the Kamau or Dahshat simply because the power of a Fireteam was directly proportionate to its cost. There was never any argument about whether or not a Core Link of Moiras was good, only if they were worth the cost of bringing five Moiras. The worst examples were Riot Grrl, Magister and DoTanko missile turrets because they abused the Frenzy discount. Now with high-end units being able to benefit from Core Links of much weaker units, that cost-balancing is gone since an entire team of 4 Alguaciles backing up a Mobile Brigada HMG and granting it the most powerful buff in the game is worth as much as only 1 more Brigada. While I think mixed links are good for the game as they help open up list building and produce more visually diverse armies on the table, they need to follow the likes of ISS and Bakunin instead of TAK, Varuna and (especially) Dahshat by keeping those links restricted to deny certain capabilities or excessive cost savings- I think we can all agree that the Kamau Sniper wouldn't be so gross if it had to be jammed into an ORC or Kamau Core instead of a Fusilier Core. Wildcard should be rare, and restricted to the likes of Characters instead of cheap Link filler or elite gunners.

    I consider NCA to be the best example of this kind of thought produced recently; while it has three Wildcards, none of them have an SWC gun and all cost over 20 points while bringing a unique capability to a link. CSUs count as Fusiliers and are slightly more expensive while bringing interesting and unpredictable gear and the NCA Machinist counts as a Bolt, giving Bolt links a fast and cheap Specialist at the cost of not being able to use Palbots to fix your TAGs and REMs. This leads to a staggering variety of playable NCA Core and Haris links, each specialised for a different set of tasks with none being clearly superior for all situations. When building an NCA list, you really have to stop and think about every link component instead of throwing your faction's best shooter in a gang of chumps and calling it a day.

    Now, as for actually using Fireteams, I'm fine playing against them except for when SSL2 arbitrarily ruins my fun, but personally dislike the length of time it takes to move one. I'm happiest when my snipers and Hackers can last the whole game without having to walk anywhere and will actually detach a link member if they're needed elsewhere for non-shooting purposes simply to save myself ten minutes of figure pushing. I'm not against Fireteams being in the game, but would like their buff list looked at and possibly nerfed if the need arises, and wouldn't mind a reduction in Fireteam sizes as well for ease of play.
     
    Belgrim, Papa Bey, Xeurian and 8 others like this.
  11. EccentricOwl

    EccentricOwl Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    67
    I would personally like a reduction in their frequency and sizes - again, not for balance purposes, but to make play faster.

    I mean, I'd probably reduce their complexity too. Anything to just make them a bit less fiddly and rulesy.
     
  12. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    2,674
    I'd be very much in favour od restricting Fireteams to a max of 3 or 4 guys.
    5 is clunky and the majority of Duos are garbage. Tohaa are a nice example that 3 man teams work very well.
    Not sure what to do about the boni. 2 man giving Sixth Sense and 3 man +1 Burst should be fine.

    A couple problems remain with that change.
    Links rely on the 5 man bonus to make a Linetrooper ML a viable ARO piece. So a Core Team would have to get access to that bonus on top of it's other stuff. Since Cores are limited to 1 there isn't much of a problem with that.
    Triads would be better than before, But could alternstively be balanced by not having them gain Sixth Sense.
    Haris and Duo will be flat out better with Sixth Sense in the mix.
    Enomotarchos could be changed to unlimited Haris.

    Persobally I'd just streamline everything. Sixth Sense for 2 man, +1B for 3 man and only Core gets the +3 to stuff.

    This would make Fireteams less clunky to use and you get something out of them every step of the way. Who is your Haris and who your Core will actually be a tough call. Access to cheap fillers will matter much less, and Fireteams without them will still only be 3 guys clocking in around a TAGs cost in for normal HI.
     
    SpectralOwl likes this.
  13. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    I'm 100% against SS lvl 2 being given more easily than now. It's the biggest advantage of defensive fireteam : they cannot be shot from the back, they ignore -6 malus from being shot through 0 visibility zone and they ignore surprise shot. It's a much stronger advantage than the +3 BS and at least as good as the +1 Burst.
     
  14. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    2,674
    Imho the shooting people through Zero Vis inflicting a -6 and Sixth Sense being able to ignore that completely is another N4 problem to look at.
    However delaying AROs and avoiding the -3 to Dodge is absolutely necessary to make any sort of active Fireteam useable on the game board.
     
  15. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    491
    Remember that not all factions have access the same way to MSV2+, and 6th sense is for that (plus other thing), giving them a little defense against some things that they might have not unit for. The sectorials swap versatility in options for access to those tools.
     
  16. Tourniquet

    Tourniquet TJC Tech Support

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    499
    Given that the majority of serctorials now allow for HI, MI or REMs im LI fireteams kind of make the LI hevay weapons kind of popintless outside of a few examples. Why take a fiusiler sniper when you have the Kamau, Why take the Aggie ML when you have the Tsykoln FB or brigada ML, etc.

    If that was all SS ignored it'd be fine, but as it allows for them to delay witrhin ZOC, ignore surprise, and create all kinds messy and mind breaking rules interactions it needs to be deleted. Just saying that fire teams that are of at least X members do not suffer the -6 from being shot at through a zero vis zone and the -3 from being shot at from out of LOF, makes it much neater and adds back some counter play. SSL2 Is to strong an ability to be picking up essentially as a free incidental.
     
  17. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    491
    SS allows to delay in ZoC, ignore surprise, stealth and malus from shots outside lof (includin 0vis zones here), something a dude with an extra sense for battle (and then react better againts surprises) would have. Yes, a lot of things that, until 2 or 3 seasons ago were not so much problem. The problem is not the fireteam, but a few of the new combinations out there. Also, I think the ignore stealth part is there because they saw how so powerful a steathed dude as Achiles can be if there is no tool to hack/deffend against him

    As you have said, why would I want a fusilier sniper at 1,5 SWC when there is the kamau, with his discounted MSV2 and the same SWC? the problem is not the fusilier there. The core with all fusiliers is good, but not so frigthening for having SS. It is when you can put in there cheap dudes with MSV2, or BS14 with 2 wounds, and so. And the same is with other factions (not only pano), some fireteams become crazy because some pieces there can enter. An alguacile core is not something people are afraid of, but when in starco you put emily there, you can break havoc. But on the other side, that core is there because it has a lot of lacking options on other places (not much MS2, no TO/ODD, no cheap warband spam, no extra orders on a rambo or a power-lieuteniant) and emily in cores is a way of "fixing" that.

    I think some problems with some fireteams come from:
    paying the same SWC in some weapons than in vainilla. I had fielded HMG and MSR alguaciles in n1 and beggining n2, but not now with sectorials, is a waste. Or in vainilla they need a SWC discount, or in the sectorial some extra cost or limitaion (I think the discount in vainilla is better option)
    hacker fireteams are lacklusters. Yes, a haris of 3 custodian is absurd.
    frenzy/impetuous fireteams have too much discount for almost no-penalty. In some sectorials, that sould be addressed
    some fireteam combinations are absurd, some are just a free powerboosts, some are more in the "we wanted to give this guy a fireteam option, but if we do the logical one, would be powerful, so we put him in a never-to-be-used option" (kriza haris, I'm looking at you)
     
    Section9 likes this.
  18. barakiel

    barakiel Echo Bravo Master Sergeant
    Warcor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    I think there are a lot of reasons that LI heavy weapons remain relevant, even in the age of mixed links. If you only take a Kamau Sniper or Bagh Mari Sniper, you become vulnerable to White Noise, so perhaps a Fusilier Missile or Acon Sapper Sniper is a useful secondary tool. If you take a Tsyklon, you have to buy a Hacker and an Engineer for full effectiveness you, lose the ability to fall Prone (useful for defensive units) and pay quite a bit more in cost. If you take a Brigada missile, you pay almost triple the points over an Alguacile, as well as .5 SWC on top of that. Even when there's a strictly "better" option available, line trooper SWC options can often give you some redundancy that helps shore up a vulnerability.

    Plus, there are a lot of line trooper SWC options that remain mostly exclusive to linetroopers. Some Sectorials simply don't have mixed links, and in many cases, there is no mixed link "upgrade" for a useful, cheap Grenade Launchers, Missile Launches, or Hacking Device carried by a Light Infantry linked guy.
     
    Section9 and Teslarod like this.
  19. bona

    bona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    86
    What if Core and Harris fireteams were removed. Instead there is a new skill called Officer (one or more unit types). E.g. Officer (Fusilier). A profile will have the skill and general cost more or have a SWC cost. The skill enable the officer to perform a coordinated order with other units of the prescribed types. The officer doesn’t have to be the leader, just part of the order. This skill can be used as often as desired. Other units can still have the “counts as” attribute to enable certain units to join differs officers coordinated order.

    This would weaken fireteams in ARO but provide flexibility with unit placement, flexibility with unit composition on a per order basis (as long as the units correspond with the officer), and may speed up play due to no coherency requirements.

    In addition, all tags can have the officer skill to allow them to coordinate with their support units. E.g. Officer (fusilier, machinist). This would buff tags efficiency without making them overpowered.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
     
    miguelbarbo84 likes this.
  20. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    2,674
    Problem is you can't just strip Fireteam boni. Several if not all Sectorials rely heavily on them to function.

    On the one side we have some absurdly good Fireteams that enable a murder machine with great support troops, or get to buy core Link boni for a center piecce for cheap or massively benefit from +1B, circumventing Frenzy/Impetuous and Sixth Sense.
    On the other side you have Mobile Brigada, Orc or Suryat Links who are terribly inefficient investments for the same effective Bonus. Where an Orc HMG can be a scary ARO piece with another 40 points of investment, a Suryat requires over 100 points to enable him as an ARO piece.
    MBs can now link with Alguaciles, but prior to that had the same problem since forever.
    Not everything should be as good as other stuff at everything. But you should have a reason to run a Bao Sniper in ISS and it shouldn't require buying a whole BAO Link in its current state.

    Changing how Coordinated Orders work or removing their dependence on Command Tokens would also be a nice change. Command Tokens are a bit too crowded these days.
     
    Tourniquet, Hecaton and Barrogh like this.