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

Let's talk Game Theory a bit...

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by DaRedOne, Mar 5, 2018.

  1. Toalpaz

    Toalpaz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    41
    This is basically astrology as far as I'm concerned!

    If you want to win your strategy will depend on the mission, your list will be built to best accomplish that mission. Game theory deals with limited resources and trying to achieve victory against people with them.

    You should really be talking about how you spend orders and how certain list compositions enable those orders to be spent more efficiently through ability synergy, This discussion also should include orders spent capturing objectives vs attacking the order pool of your opponent, because as I see it that is the main question that people can benefit from. When to stop chasing that white whale and start doing objective points!
     
    sarf, Abrilete, ZlaKhon and 1 other person like this.
  2. Herr Hörn

    Herr Hörn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    53
    I don't disagree that the main point which gives you victory is your strategic ability. In fact, I do agree in that order efficiency and strategy are the main big points to discuss when it comes to how to win a game. However, that discussion is in almost every thread I read here, especially in the factions different subforum. Every time there's a new unit, or an update, or someone posts an army list, people begin discussing game plans, synergies, and so on. That discussion which you are referring to is happening constantly.

    On the other hand, the conversation that deals with how different players play is almost non-existant. This is the first thread I have seen trying to poke at the question.

    Now, in Infinity I have many times heard of units which some people think are overpowered, and some people can't make use of at all (to different extents). Given that the unit is the same, then it has to be usage of the unit that differs. Of course, when one plays, you try your best to be as efficient as possible, but if you just keep losing the cool unit everyone says is great, should you keep pushing it, or should you shelf it and find another unit that you personally can use, something that you feel more comfortable with playing?

    Now, naturally, the best players around are capable of making any style work (and that's really the end-goal for anyone who wishes to train his skill), but that's not true for everyone. Especially newer players can probably not master every playstyle immeadiately, but should settle for something that feels good for them at first and play that. Besides, I think that the playstyle you enjoy the most, for those of us who has one, would probably be the one you are best at. For me, that's defensive lists and startegies. For someone else, lile yourself, maybe playstyles don't even matter.

    And finally, this thread discusses different playstyles that can be found and player tendencies. I personally do not think discussing this and having knowledge of it gives you any advantage in the game at all, other than perhaps coming to accept and realise the things you have a knack for, and the things you don't. Instead, I see this discussion just as a casual observation of general tendencies, or rather, a discussion whether there are different general tendencies for players in the game and where those tendencies lie. In Magic: The Gathering the terms Johnny, Timmy and Spike are commonly accepted as referring to different player types: Johnny likes spells and cool combos, Timmy likes big monsters, and Spike wants to win at all costs. Now, that doesn't mean that Johnny can't play big monsters every now and then, nor does it mean that the knowledge of those typer gives you any edge. It was just and observation of the community and the different things they prefer.

    Maybe the thread title is misleading, I don't know.

    Sorry for the textwall, and I hope this didn't come off sounding passive-aggressive. I just wanted to give a reason as to why I think this discussion is interesting, since it seems to have so many detractors.
    In the end, most people say knowing different playstyles won't help you win. And I can agree with that, but that doesn't mean this can't be an interesting and fun discussion to have anyway.
     
    CoveredInFish, DaRedOne and Robock like this.
  3. ZlaKhon

    ZlaKhon New scale enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    393
    I really like this thread, because I think it adresses a real issue.

    The typical advice given to new players looking to get into the game is to simply pick up the faction with the minatures they think look best. This is good advice to hobbists to whom painting and collecting is as important as gaming. Players with a mindset more taylored to playing chess or magic cards might be more interested in finding out which faction best supports the general tactics they feel most comfortable with. We‘ve made quite some points that in order to become a good competitive player one should overcome attatchments to specific strategies, but for a player who is just starting out it does make sense to start by learning how to leverage the advantages of one faction.

    The main issue here is that infinity is far more dynamic and situational than other games and understanding the differences between factions actually requires a pretty solid understanding of how infinity games are played. Maybe there is potential for a blog article, which highlights the main ideas of different factions and sectorials in a manner that players about to get into infinity can identify, which playstile may be the best starting point for them.

    Not sure if I do have the time, but I‘ll consider writing something up and putting it on here for discussion.
     
    Wolf, DaRedOne, Stiopa and 2 others like this.
  4. Wombat85

    Wombat85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    506
    I think your on the right track but are missing the real abstraction, namely risk response, and risk assessment. Both areas are well researched and can be applied to the game for each individual event within a game. At a macro level I wouldn't say that people have a play-style as you have defined it, rather they have a influence modifier to the decision made based on the risk assessment. For example someone who is risk averse (aka defensive player) is more likely to take the conservative option, but individual bias then steps in to further adjust the likely outcome. Simply being risk averse doesn't prevent an individual from taking a risky move if they perceive the risk to be lower than it actually is (the old one more order to shoot you because statistically it has to go my way this time thing).
     
    CoveredInFish and Herr Hörn like this.
  5. ZlaKhon

    ZlaKhon New scale enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    393
    @Wombat85 : not sure if I got your point.
    From my initial post:

    "To me the measure of how good a player is would be if they can identify all reasonable options and can evaluate their efficiency (within the limitations of infinity being a dice game)." (risk assessment)

    "So in my view the very personal aspect to separate players would be their affinity to risk. Would you choose a very safe option (...) or a high risk option (...) provided that both options would have the same risk/reward ratio." (risk affinity)

    Are you essentially suggesting this modification:

    "So in my view the very personal aspect to separate players would be their affinity to their perceived risk. Would you choose a very safe option (...) or a high risk option (...) provided that both options would look like having the same risk/reward ratio to you." (risk affinity)

    That I couldn't agree with more as you obviously always act based on your perceptions and not some theoretical ground truth.

    Your "one more order to shoot" example seems like a combination of two fallacies:
    - failure to update the risk/reward scenario after each order (hard to get the hang on for new players)
    - the perception that a statistical experiment like a f2f roll would somehow be influenced by past events (basic math)
     
  6. Wombat85

    Wombat85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    506
    Absolutly this is what im suggesting. Those changes are subtle, but they fundamentally change the scope of your original statement from a simple analysis of statistics to now also include the skewing of that data by individual bias.

    The point of my example was to illustrate the two most common demontrations of risk bias I see in the game. Look up roullette wheel boards for an example of why my second point is more than just basic math
     
  7. Danger Rose

    Danger Rose Sand Cats Tactical Security LLC

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    1,099
    All these opinions are very interesting, I really like this topic.
    This! We are mostly a Community of Hobbyist who love to paint, but recently we had 2 "Players" interested in the game, and the "Buy what pleases your eyes" approach wasn't enough for them. We're still working out how to explain the Factions and advantages of each.

    Concerning the Player styles, I htink you missed the Chaotic Playstyle, the one where the player by design or accident never plays the same way twice. I have 3 of those in my meta, one deliberate (our local Nomad Player who loves to try all his armies options and permutations), and two accidental, one who tries to apply other wargme strategies to Infinity and one who just simply doesn't know what he wants and seems to make lists randomly.
     
    DaRedOne likes this.
  8. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    It seems to me that Game Theory might be abit of a misnomer, we haven't actually dealt with much of any Game Theory in this thread at all :)

    when it comes to play style. I suppose it might be worth looking at how the various factions and armies typically want to win and see how to classify play styles relating to that?

    Just as a quick example:
    • QK Looks to bring greater order efficiency and toolboxy units to bear.
    • Ariadna tends to rely on redundant models and points efficient trades.
    • Tohaa relies on exceptional durability.
    • Shasvatii relies on vision modifiers.
    • Pan-O looks to above average gun fighting.
    I think its feasible to 'broadly' categorize which major advantage each faction tends to play towards and the define potential play styles around those. Of course one of the nice things about infinity is most factions can be tweaked to play most ways...
     
    ZlaKhon likes this.
  9. ZlaKhon

    ZlaKhon New scale enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    393
    @Danger Rose : good to see that there is actually a need for this.

    In the end of 2018 the number of factions will have increased to ~31. This is already a lot but based on older statements from CB the 8 newer sectiorials (Bayram, JSA, Starco, Ikari plus the 4 to come later this year) is only the first half of 16 planned new sectorials. So without wanting to argue about details I think it is fair to say that within the next years Infinity will host about 40 factions, which is pretty hard to handle in terms of complexity.
    So if we would write up half a page of introduction to the gameplay of each faction this would already be a 20 page tome, which only few people would want to read.

    So I think there really is a need to identify a small set of attributes to group these factions by. This could then serve as a firsr orientation so that the potential new players can look up more information on the factions they find appealing based on this first abstration layer.

    For this to work we‘d really need to come up with a common understanding of faction attributes, which enable or restrict certain playstiles.

    Here are some examples I could think off:

    Strong Alpha Strike: the faction has the ability to launch a hard hitting and potentially game winning attack in the first turn with very durable models (Achilles, Sphinx, Su Jian,...), which have a high chance of surviving.

    Weak Alpha Strike: the faction has the ability to launch a hard hitting and potentially game winning attack in the first turn with expendable models or groups of models (Yuan Yuan, inferior Infiltration, Impersonators, Dog warriors,...).

    Already here we run into some problems as Dog Warriors are in principle a durable unit, yet I personally think that expendable is an even more characteristic feature of them.
    It would also be fair to ask if not every faction is capable of dealing weak alpha strikes as almost everyone has access to airborne troupers.

    I‘d greatly appreciate some input on this, especially suggestion on what attributes to use to differentiate the factions.
     
    DaRedOne likes this.
  10. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    I think perhaps I was unclear. My theory isnt that you need to write a faction by faction analysis. But that finding the typical strengths of each faction will give you a list. There will definitely be some overlap.

    I think this is exactly the problem, you're going too granularly into the way that individual models are played. And the vast majority of factions can make use of the vast majority of model specific strategies. Try pulling your analysis up a level. In broad strokes what does an army try and make use of to accomplish its goals?

    Ex:
    • Efficiency: The army looks to win games by gaining more value per order. (ex: Fire Teams, Infiltrators, Synchronized models)
    • Redundancy: The army looks to win games by grinding out small efficient trades. Multiple overlapping units or inexpensive pieces allow for a piece-for-piece trading that ends with the army ahead. (ex: Ariadna Order Spam, Synchronized Models, Chain of Comand)
    • Durability: The army looks to win games by having models that can typically survive more hits than average, reducing individual risk and improving order outcomes. (ex: Tohaa Symbionts, V:NWI)
    • Control: The army looks to win games by controlling movement across the board and increase risk for the opposition through area denial. (ex: Mine layers, Hackers, Crazy Koalas)
    • Verticality: The army looks to win games by bringing a higher powered piece to the board and dominating through better stats. (ex: TAGs, Achilles, Pan-Os +1BS)
    • Deception: The army looks to win games by denying the enemy knowledge via private information. (Ex: TO, AD, Holo)

    None of these on their own inherently describes an army. But if you tried to give every faction two or three of these descriptors I bet you could describe their typical game plans. I dont think this is a perfect system but I doubt you'd ever find one. If your goal is to introduce new players to broad strokes concepts I think this fits fairly well.

    Ex:
    • Tohaa
      • Strengths: Efficiency & Durability
      • Weakness: Verticality
    • Nomads:
      • Strengths: Control & Deception
      • Weakness: Durability
    • Pan O
      • Strengths: Verticality
      • Weakness: Deception
    • QK
      • Strengths: Redundancy & Efficiency
      • Weakness: Durabilitiy
    • CA
      • Strengths: Durability & Verticality
      • Weakness: Redundancy
     
  11. DaRedOne

    DaRedOne Morat Warrior Philosopher
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    860
    Likes Received:
    1,802

    I like this. I would like to see other examples of these descriptors. Perhaps something to cover the heavy use of AD troops and another to cover use of entrenched ARO teams?
     
  12. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Obviously your mileage may vary but I think most of that is covered already under those categories. Making heavy use of AD Could fall under Deception if they're used mid to late game. Or Under Efficiency if used as an early aggressive attack piece (re: Yuan Yuan)

    Entrenched ARO teams is another Question I suppose. Do you have a specific example you had in mind? I could see it going alot of different ways.
     
  13. ZlaKhon

    ZlaKhon New scale enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    393
    No, you weren‘t unclear. I just had my last answer written up for such a long time that you postet in the meantime.

    I like your system. As you pointed out, this will always be a simplified picture.
    Looking at typical QK lists Id agree that they lack durability even though a pain train of 5 Jannisaires or the Scarface meets Iguana list are pretty durable.
    Most PanO lists dont have any deception at all, even though the Cutter is an option.
    I‘ll try to come up with classifications of other factions following this sceme.

    On entrenched ARO fireteams: that would work well in the control section as it essentially is a way of area denial.
     
    TheRedZealot likes this.
  14. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    I spent a little bit of time trying to place how and where each army fits in to my overall scheme. There are some interesting overlaps where I have labeled things in a similar way but their path to get there is completely different. For example Vanilla Pan-O and Steel Phalanx to my mind are trying to accomplish the same basic things. But Phalanx does it by linking up and stacking ODD. While Pan-O relies on a plethora of heavy pieces, and smaller bonuses.

    There are also a number of places where I think it would be easy to add or change strengths/weaknesses depending on what you wanted to make your point of comparison. Are we trying to list each army in relation to one another? Or along an internal consistency spectrum? If we're focused on the idea of armies in relation to one another then I think there is room to expand Verticality and Efficiency into 2 options each. However I prefer the idea of an internal consistency and if that is the case then I think the 6 we have is ok.

    • Pan-O
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Verticality
        • Weakness: Deception
      • Military Orders
        • Strength: Verticality, Deception
        • Weakness: Redundancy, Control
      • Neo Terra
        • Strength: Verticality, Efficiency
        • Weakness: Redundancy, Deception
      • Aconticmento
        • Strength: Verticality, Control
        • Weakness: Deception
    • Yu Jing
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Control
        • Weakness: Efficiency
      • Imperial Service
        • Strength: Control
        • Weakness: Deception
    • Ariadna
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Redundancy, Efficiency, Deception
        • Weakness: Verticality, Control
      • USARF
        • Strength: Redundancy
        • Weakness: Verticality
      • Caledonia
        • Strength: Redundancy, Efficiency
        • Weakness: Verticality, Deception
      • Merovingian
        • Strength: Efficiency
        • Weakness: Deception
    • Haqqislam
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Redundancy, Deception
        • Weakness: Control
      • QK
        • Strength: Efficiency, Redundancy
        • Weakness: Deception
      • Hassassin
        • Strength: Efficiency, Control
        • Weakness: Verticality
    • Nomads
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Control, Deception
        • Weakness: Durability
      • Corregidor
        • Strength: Efficiency
        • Weakness:
      • Bakunin
        • Strength: Control
        • Weakness: Durability
    • Combined Army
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Verticality, Durability
        • Weakness: Redundancy
      • Onyx
        • Strength: Durability
        • Weakness: Redundancy
      • Morat
        • Strength: Efficiency
        • Weakness: Deception, Control
      • Shasvastii
        • Strength: Deception
        • Weakness: Redundancy
    • Aleph
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Durability, Verticality
        • Weakness: Redundancy
      • Steel Phalanx
        • Strength: Verticality
        • Weakness: Deception, Redundancy
    • Tohaa
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Durability, Efficiency
        • Weakness: Verticality
    • NA2
      • JSA
        • Strength: Deception, Durability
        • Weakness: Control
      • Druze
        • Strength: Efficiency, Redundancy
        • Weakness: Deception
      • StarCo
        • Strength: Control, Deception
        • Weakness: Durability
      • Ikari
        • Strength: Efficiency, Durability
        • Weakness: Deception
     
    Quirk, Wolf, Herr Hörn and 2 others like this.
  15. DaRedOne

    DaRedOne Morat Warrior Philosopher
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    860
    Likes Received:
    1,802
    ahahahahaha, Corregidor has no weaknesses! I love it. I'm going to use this in the future, okay?
     
  16. Furiat

    Furiat Mandarin

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    255
    Its biggest weakness is outdated moran with no resculpt on the horizon.
     
    Deltervees likes this.
  17. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Whatever you like.

    As for weaknesses, Corregidor is in an interesting spot in my mind. It doesn't have a whole lot of great Camo but it has some solid AD troops and enough Camo to be potentially be deceptive. It doesn't have any mine layers or many infiltrators but has solid enough hackers and Morans to contest the mid field. Its got Jaguars to help trade out in a grindy game. It has the Brigada Link and the Igauna/Geckos if it wants to go big (not to mention Smoke + Intruders) but it doesn't have anything quite like Achilles.

    It can try and cover any of the other bases fairly well but it will never be great at them and it likely wont be great at them all at once. Even when it comes to the idea of Efficiency there are more efficient armies than Corregidor but it has some really solid tools to get ahead on order efficiency.
     
  18. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    7,616
    I'm not sure "control" is something I'd put as it is defined here next to a faction that's notorious for being poor in the ARO department...
     
    armazingerz likes this.
  19. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Could you elaborate on the specific faction you mean?
     
  20. ZlaKhon

    ZlaKhon New scale enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    393
    Wow, great write-up @TheRedZealot !

    I agree with most of your characterizations.
    Here are some things I'm not yet sold on:
    • Pan-O
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Verticality
        • Weakness: Deception
      • Military Orders
        • Strength: Verticality, Deception
        • Weakness: Redundancy, Control
      • Neo Terra
        • Strength: Verticality, Efficiency
        • Weakness: Redundancy, Deception
      • Aconticmento
        • Strength: Verticality, Control
        • Weakness: Deception
    I wouldn't want to say that MOs strength is deception. The TO FO and MSR profiles are incredibly useful and have unlimited AVA, yet spamming them isn't a sensible build in my opinion. And the typical amount of 2-3 TO models wouldn't really classify as more deception than say a Aleph list with 2 Daysus and 2 Nagas (which can be a part of a pretty solid build).

    The redundancy problem for Neoterra feels a bit weird to me. This is something I'd consider a typical Neoterra list:
    [​IMG] Neoterran Capitaline Army
    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────

    GROUP 1[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]10
    [​IMG] FUSILIER Lieutenant Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 10)
    [​IMG] FUSILIER Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 10)
    [​IMG] FUSILIER Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 10)
    [​IMG] FUSILIER Hacker (Hacking Device) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 18)
    [​IMG] FUSILIER HMG / Pistol, Knife. (1 | 18)
    [​IMG] INDIGO Spec-Ops (12 XP) (CH: Mimetism, Engineer) Combi Rifle, MULTI Sniper / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 10)
    [​IMG] MULEBOT (Minesweeper, Repeater) Electric Pulse. (0 | 8)
    [​IMG] MULEBOT (Minesweeper, Repeater) Electric Pulse. (0 | 8)
    [​IMG] HEXA Hacker (Killer Hacking Device) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Electric Pulse. (0 | 27)
    [​IMG] PEACEMAKER Spitfire + AUXBOT_3 / Electric Pulse. (1 | 27)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] AUXBOT_3 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4)

    GROUP 2[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]10
    [​IMG] FUGAZI DRONBOT Flash Pulse, Sniffer / Electric Pulse. (0 | 8)
    [​IMG] FUGAZI DRONBOT Flash Pulse, Sniffer / Electric Pulse. (0 | 8)
    [​IMG] FUGAZI DRONBOT Flash Pulse, Sniffer / Electric Pulse. (0 | 8)
    [​IMG] HEXA MULTI Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Electric Pulse. (1.5 | 32)
    [​IMG] BULLETEER Spitfire / Electric Pulse. (1 | 23)
    [​IMG] AUXILIA (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4)
    [​IMG] AUXILIA (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4)
    [​IMG] AUXILIA (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4)
    [​IMG] AUXILIA (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4)
    [​IMG] AUXILIA (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4)

    5 SWC | 300 Points

    Open in Infinity Army

    Of course this list falls short on the Verticality aspect, but this would definitely be my go-to build for NCA rather than looking at Swiss Guards or Uhlans. Being able to spam Auxilias is just way too good to pass up.
    • Yu Jing
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Control
        • Weakness: Efficiency
      • Imperial Service
        • Strength: Control
        • Weakness: Deception
    I'd like to add Redundancy to Vanilla and Imperial Service due to the Kuang Shi and Monks. At least in my experience the trading models using cheap dudes with chain rifles approach works quite well here and is one of the most competitive builds I am aware of. At least I feel weird leaving the house with less than 8 Kuang Shi when playing Imperial Service ;)
    • Ariadna
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Redundancy, Efficiency, Deception
        • Weakness: Verticality, Control
      • USARF
        • Strength: Redundancy
        • Weakness: Verticality
      • Caledonia
        • Strength: Redundancy, Efficiency
        • Weakness: Verticality, Deception
      • Merovingian
        • Strength: Efficiency
        • Weakness: Deception
    Vanilla doesn't have a Control problem in my opinion as plenty of good ARO pieces (Tankhunter, Cateran) are available and the midfield is usually flooded with Camo including some Minelayers so the overall board control is above average at least.
    • Haqqislam
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Redundancy, Deception
        • Weakness: Control
      • QK
        • Strength: Efficiency, Redundancy
        • Weakness: Deception
      • Hassassin
        • Strength: Efficiency, Control
        • Weakness: Verticality
    For Vanilla, I'd see Verticality as the main weakness. I can't really thing of any really tough piece that could cover that aspect.
    The deception in QK certainly has seen better days with the new link rules, but I'd still think the faction with fake HI links of 5 due to Holo and Yuan Yuans as well as Bashis can make for quite some deception. However, I fail to come up with a real weakness here. Maybe again Verticality?
    • Nomads
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Control, Deception
        • Weakness: Durability
      • Corregidor
        • Strength: Efficiency
        • Weakness:
      • Bakunin
        • Strength: Control
        • Weakness: Durability
    Corregidor is weirdly centered. In fact I originally picked them up to play the most "normal" faction in the game. My personal pain point is the 1 SWC LT tax for Alguaciles, which inhibits some cool builds, but outside of that Corregidor seems to be what you want it to be. Maybe Verticality could be named as a Weakness to express that it lacks a more durable Alpha Striker than Mc Murder?
    • Combined Army
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Verticality, Durability
        • Weakness: Redundancy
      • Onyx
        • Strength: Durability
        • Weakness: Redundancy
      • Morat
        • Strength: Efficiency
        • Weakness: Deception, Control
      • Shasvastii
        • Strength: Deception
        • Weakness: Redundancy
    Maybe for Onyx we could add efficiency as their link teams are pretty great to keep order consumption low and allow for cool 10 model lists?
    • Aleph
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Durability, Verticality
        • Weakness: Redundancy
      • Steel Phalanx
        • Strength: Verticality
        • Weakness: Deception, Redundancy
    Agreed.
    • Tohaa
      • Vanilla
        • Strength: Durability, Efficiency
        • Weakness: Verticality
    Agreed.
    • NA2
      • JSA
        • Strength: Deception, Durability
        • Weakness: Control
      • Druze
        • Strength: Efficiency, Redundancy
        • Weakness: Deception
      • StarCo
        • Strength: Control, Deception
        • Weakness: Durability
      • Ikari
        • Strength: Efficiency, Durability
        • Weakness: Deception
    For JSA I think defensive link teams and Ruyken 9 will provide great board control. Not sure what to put as a weakness though.

    From what we know about StarCo so far I'd think that my 2 go-to builds for tournaments will likely be one list with MB pain train with Massacre and Avicenna and a list with an Alguaciles core and a Riot Grrrls Harris. So I feel they may end up being quite durable.


    In the process of thinking about these characterizations, I started to rewrite the description for redundancy to explicitly include that this can also mean simply fielding more orders than usual.
     
    Quirk likes this.