Sorry that it's taking a while to come out with the next version, I haven't devoted much time to it. Was waiting to hear some feedback before I made any more moves, but perhaps it needs a little more 'meat' for folks to bite into. And there certainly are some adjustments to be made, and things to improve. @Bakga @zapp Thanks guys, there should be more to come! @Danger Rose That's incredibly kind of you! Especially as someone who shares an interest in expanding Infinity to Coop/Solo play- I'd love to hear what you have to say.
@Terrordactyl Not on an actual table! I've run through the scenario half a dozen times on Tabletop Simulator, and while I think it works in a very fundamental way (for demonstration purposes) I do of course feel things need to be changed. Maybe radically. I'm working on some fairly generic missions that have been inspired by some of the most fun scenarios I've played- mainly by the 20x20 Mission System. I love their use of 'Favoured Specialists', to keep all troopsrelevant to an objective.
There are a few design bumps I found myself running into when playtesting, and I'd like to hear your guys' opinion.
Firstly, a few core design concepts that should be considered. Infinity is a complex game. Any information and mechanics that are being added need to be as streamlined as possible, to minimize overloading players on how the gamemode works. There is of course a limit to how much fat can be trimmed on Infinity (mechanically) before it loses the wonderful tactical depth we all love it for. So, The player's should retain as much of the core game rules as possible- while simplifying what I can for the A.I.
Infinity is engaging because it's 'always your turn' That won't be the case when you're playing with a group of allies, since you have to share your 'Active turn' with models you don't control AND you have to perform the A.I.'s motions. This is tedious, and should be as streamlined as possible. The gamemode mechanics should handle all the thinking for the players, who only need to follow very simple and clear instructions.
So, attempting to balance these things is a dilemma, and brought up some questions while I was playtesting.
How many units should each player control? Some factions are VERY centered on the fact that they can outnumber the enemy. So it would be unfair to restrict numbers, which could cause unbalance or make fireteams impossible. But if there was no restriction, depending on the number of players- you could end up having turns that drag on forever. With each player fielding masses of cheap units that make for long period of time where other players sit idly. So, maybe restricting to something like 5 model Combat Groups?
Wow, this is taking a lot of turns.. With only controlling small amounts of units... the order pool is tiny. This makes what you can accomplish during an Active Turn... very very limited. This is the current state of the game, resulting in very quick Turns firing back and forth while feeling like you cannot make any large plays with how small your order pool is. I have considered artificially inflating player's order pools. Maybe players have an additional 5 'Temporary Orders' that are one-use per mission? Maybe give players a kind of 'endurance order pool' of 5 orders that refresh at a rate of 2 orders per turn? I feel like things would go smoother if players had more orders, and less units.
Lastly, Wouldn't this be cool with some RPG elements? The idea of each player creating a 'character' spec-op as they went from mission to mission, each scenario following a narrative campaign of sorts. I think this would be super cool.