Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by psychoticstorm, Aug 6, 2019.
Cabal, that's a great fix for hackers, but I'd like to go a step further. Corvus should trim the program list down to one to two per device and list them in the unit profile. They can still have specialized programs, but get rid of the tables and charts listing who has access to what and when it might be useful.
It frees up design space and makes hacking more akin to weapon profiles. There's no longer an 'assault hacker' but a hacker with a program that isolates or immobilizes heavy infantry. For a few extra points they can also get a program that kill other hackers. Mix and match, yo.
Then I'd like to see another class of hackers that focus on support. Hacking isn't supposed to dump damage on the enemy, but tilt the battle in their team's favor. I'd like to see hackers with specialized programs that create rough terrain, add burst to units on ARO, or hand out ammo types. Maybe make a 'no-tech-field' where guns just cease to work and combine it with a program that gives martial arts. That kind of stuff.
I'd love to see a sectorial that is absolute shit with stats but made amazing by support programs.
The complexity of the game is what makes it great. You have to think. You have to study. Infinity is not a casual game if you ask me. That was part of the appeal to me. It has not just been some normal skrimmisher I have gotten bored with and put away after a few match ups or a campaign.
In gerneral the market is greater for easier games. But there is a market for non casual tabletop skirmmisher games. I believe this is why CB has done well enough with Infinity.
They are smart marketers and have made 1 and soon to be 2 casual games. Carlos siad "Even your mom can play" in regard to defiance. I say leave it as it is.
I agree in this sentimate. Hacking is nice and serves a purpose but its kinda lame thematically. When I first started playing I though it was going to be a sci-fi form of a magic or a psyonic system. Nope. Its not hat exciting in pratice. Do some assisted fire, red rums (okay kind neat), make stuff stand still and some resets. Possesion of tags is prettt bad ass but all in all its not that exciting to play with imo. It feels more like a nessesity if you play an army that you need to defend against it.
Mabye I should play some nomads. Wpuld that change my mind.
Im not say I dont like hacking in the game i do. I just wish it was more satisfying.
I also really agree with this.
Sweet baby jeebus, THIS.
Reduce the offensive hacking programs down to maybe 5: Immobilize, Isolate, Melt Hacker's Brain, Possess that TAG, and Mark Target. Add some supporting programs, like 'Pick Lock'. Add some HI supportware.
I know some people don't like games with buffs. What is a computer operator supposed to do in the game, then?
Add more sniffers to more profiles. and the 17pt fo bot is often more than enough to just ping the table.
I disagree, but I can see your reasoning and can't actually provide an argument beyond :p
I mean...that IS realistic. The round would have to penetrate the front AND back of the armor which, depending on several factors we are going to keep super simple, effectively doubles the armor said round would need to penetrate AND would have the effect of causing the round to tumble after penetrating the front, thus massively decreasing the likelihood of a it penetrating the rear armor. So, I mean, yeah, realistically, that's realistic.
Theoretically that sectorial or faction is meant to be Nomads.
I'd love to see Hacker be a general skill with the individual programs being assigned to them as "weapons", but that kind of runs into a problem that's strictly UI related. Even assuming that all military devices have a basic subset of programs (Lock Picker, Hack Transport Aircraft*, U-Turn*, Spotlight, Breakwater, Brain Blast, Exorcism and Gotcha!), how do you write a succinct list of programs a Hacker might have in Army and on the printouts?
Is one or two program enough to sufficiently describe a Hacker under those circumstances? "Celestial Guard Hacker (Skulbuster, Overlord)"
What about profiles that are defined by several programs, how do you write those? Mary Problems (Trinity, Redrum, Carbonite, Oblivion, Total Control ...)
* These programs are too small to be left off a list like that, but if left in they'd need to be redesigned and have the corresponding equipment they're meant to combat redesigned as well. Maybe if Hack Transport Aircraft only worked on AD troops trying to land within ZoC?
That's only assuming you shoot through the armour or that you're using bullets not designed to penetrate armour.
If the bullet is designed to penetrate the armour, it's equally likely all that will happen is that the bullet will get squashed/splintered by the armour but keep sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate the Moderator's skin which will result in increased internal trauma and more destroyed organs.
Additionally, not wearing the armour decreases the likelihood of the armour plates actually covering vital organs meaning instead of having a ceramic plate in front of your heart you now have a ceramic plate in front of your left arm, leaving your heart exposed - again increasing the damage of a potential hit from a flesh wound requiring surgery to being instantly lethal since considering an AP round isn't likely to deform nearly as much as a regular round when it strikes soft tissue it'll need either armour or a direct hit to more critical body parts to do equivalent damage.
A small side note for AD: Combat Jump. It should be changed so it is more in line with the normal skill sequence. Currently it is one of the only skills that does not follow it. It should be as following:
Declare entire order AD skill and choose the landing spot.
Opponent declares ARO against the AD trooper.
Skill resolution -> F2F between the AD PH-Roll and the AROs (BS-Attacks, Hacking, etc.).
If the AD trooper wins all F2F rolls he lands and evades all attacks/hacks/templates
If the AD trooper looses/fails his roll he suffers the effects of the attacks and dispersion
If the AD trooper ties his roll he only suffers dispersion
He does not generate AROs on his final position if he disperses
With this change the skill would fit the normal skill pattern and in addition would become more worthwhile to attempt.
Or just make AD auto-succeed but bring back the landing zone template. Then have HTA be a no-MOD ZoC+Repeater ARO. Makes AD more consistent and strongly improves hacking defense against it to a degree where it should be preferable to any other potential ARO the Hacker might have been able to declare.
I’d like sectorials to reassess how much they rely on mercenary units. Unless there is a story reason I’d like sectorials to not need to take a mercenary/generic unit for core skills like doctors or engineers or similar.
It’s just a ‘feel’ thing but if I’ve chosen something like Ramah I’d rather not have Carmen and Batard turn up in so many lists. Same with Monstruckers.
Maybe it’s less prevalent than I think but for me if I’ve chosen a sub faction of an army I’d like to be using the in-faction models.
Yes I know some factions are like QK where being a mix of mercs is their flavour. There’s also NA2 Merc factions who wouldn’t need to be changed.
I don't know if I expressed myself poorly, but ironically, you kind of make my point. If I may, I specifically wrote: "Veterans screamed murder, but the result was just as much complexity".
I absolutely would not wish for Infinity to be a simple game, it would undermine what attracted me in the first place. And Kill Team is a thing, if I really want to look at simpler fare. But there absolutely is a thing as uninteresting complexity. If two separate rules lead to the same behaviour and tactical considerations 95% of the time, the overhead is probably not worth it as they do not lead to interesting choices. When I compare a Wu Ming to a Liu Xing, 2W and No Cube vs Bioimmunity and NWI, I see a lot of rules for anecdotal differences in real play, in a game that is very much about contrast and asymmetry.
Note that the point is not "less rules". Freeing inefficient overhead allows a designer to more freely explore their design space without bloat.
In the last few weeks and especially this last week, I had a high influx of new players (5 is a lot for the Netherlands!). And the big draws, gameplay wise, are the Active/Reactive turn, Face to Face rolls and the order system. This is what makes Infinity stand out from the rest. The base mechanics are solid and the models are gorgeous. Whatever CB does, they have to work from there, I think. Make the basics easy to use and anything you tag on to that is far easier to digest for (incoming) players.
I would propose, for the sake of clearity. that every roll that can be a face to face roll, should be a face to face roll. For example: Rolling for an objective, while your opponent can fire: Face to face roll. It may sound counter-intuïtive, but for the sake of clearity it makes more sense. To many ifs and buts for a rule that is a core mechanic of the game, I think. If you both can role in a given situation, it should be FTF.
The largest portion we spend in the game is moving and shooting/dodging. Make sense to me that weapon charts should be clear because of it. So what people suggested that similar weapons become one, with only a ammo destinction, makes sense to me. The thing we do the most should be the easiest to do.
That is why I love the crit, cause it is simple. You rolled what you need, you have wounded your opponent directly. Easy to understand by new players that a crit result beats all others. And it makes the game dangerous for everything that stepped on the field. A rifle is still a rifle and when bullets fly they can end up in your eyesocket. I would suggest you make the crit rule even simpler. just an autowound, and not a whole chart of "what if you crit with a special ammo". You crit a hit with an explosive weapon. Just 1 auto wound and nothing else. Would make Multi-wound models a bit more survivable against crits when hit with certain special ammo type, but without making whole set of even more rules and steps to go through. A crit is one autowound is easy to explain.
I love it that killing your opponent is not the primary objective in Infinity, but the mission is. Retreat is therefor an important rule. I would love to see expanding upon it. currently you are in retreat when you have 25% or less of your force left. I would love to see the option to voluntarily go into retreat when you have 30% or less left. At the beginning of your turn. Just so you have a tactical choice if you can push on with the 100 to 76 points that you have left, or leave the field. That way people have to be more keen on what they kill and can't rely on slaying your opponent close to 76 points.
I agree for the killing vs "true" objective part, but not on the retreat thing. While i'm not really keen on overkilling in my usual games, i think that if one opponent is virtually wiped out in turn 2, his opponent should be able to still play turn 3, and not lose just because the first player did some suicide rush on objectives. Well, i feel like it's more difficult to pull now with the current missions. But even then ... I have no problem with a player who win the killing but lose the game due to a bad focus on the mission, but i do if he's losing on turn 2 while he would be winning on turn 3 just because retreat makes the game end on turn 2.
A player should never lose for beating their opponent too hard.
For me it shows: if you have not done enough objectives to win the game while wiping out your opponent in two turns and your opponent takes more objective points home in its retreat, well you did not spend your orders well to do the primary objective.
for the sake of game balance, the player should lose. For one because killing will not give you Objective Points in most missions.
I think it is a smart move on CB that retreat ends the game after the turn is been played. Because this makes sure that we are not just bringing army lists who are all about the killing (and do objectives after everybodies dead) and have to think about which actions to take, besides shooting at your opponent, to win the game. you can murder everybody all day long with Sheskin, but if you forgot to beep the boops, well that the actual reason for your team being there in the first place.
In Infinity armies can be killed in an instant if luck is on the side of one player and the other cannot make armor rolls to save its life. It is a way for players to still stay in the game and have a chance at victory, even when lady luck has gone off fishing. And for the player that is trouncing his opponent, he still needs to be smart about it. You have to spend your orders wisely and not just put them into the big guns.
Retreat makes sure that the game is not all about who brings the best fighting units to the game.
Tip: if you think your opponent is suicide running you and trying to die on you on purpose, you can always dodge instead of shoot and make sure enough of them stay alive so you can do your objectives.
I would amend that to "a player shouldn't lose by beating their opponent hard enough". Typically if you over-focus on killing your opponent's troops, the issue will settle itself naturally by you not having enough orders to secure a strong win - even in missions without the Retreat special end timing.
Mostly I think missions that need that timing are not designed with enough objective diversity (points assignment that are too swingy, rely on too few few actions, etc)
Why in God's name should I ever have to do that?
Nah, man, Mahtamori said it best: if a player over focuses on killing then they should lose because they lack the orders to complete the objective. That's the only thing that should limit a player's ability to succeed.
I like killing. It makes me happy. I plan my games around three turns and I should have three turns to finish the mission. If my opponent plays his list poorly, or if I get lucky on a few crits, then I shouldn't be punished for that success by stripping me of a whole third of the game. I can't even think of a lore reason for this.
Like, is my team too busy jerking off to their own success to push the damn button?
This is a very bad gameplay experience and very bad game design. It also makes no sense fluff-wise, just so some Euro game players can be satisfied that their wargame punishes their opponent for interacting with them.
Agreed but Let's get missions that successfully do this before we remove retreat shall we?