Brother G

Vehicles in Infinity

302 posts in this topic

Hello guys, does any body knows if CB is ever gonna do rules for vehicles?

Brother. G

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk 2

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The talk at GenCon mentioned vehicles, but the general tone was:

1. Producing vehicle models is expensive, and would result in very expensive models.

2. It's difficult to do vehicles without having the vehicles dominate the game.

The rulebook does mention vehicles, and they have that cardboard drop pod, so they've obviously thought about vehicles. But beyond that...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The talk at GenCon mentioned vehicles, but the general tone was:

1. Producing vehicle models is expensive, and would result in very expensive models.

2. It's difficult to do vehicles without having the vehicles dominate the game.

The rulebook does mention vehicles, and they have that cardboard drop pod, so they've obviously thought about vehicles. But beyond that...

Thank glob...vehicles would be utterly stupid in this game. Bikes and TAGs are already very powerful as is...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already have rules for the vehicles: they come, they drop the troops and they leave (AD, MD) XD

Well, aside from that there already exist rules for bikes and TAGs. What else do you need?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CB may come up with rules for ground cars that you can hijack and use in scenarios - maybe even an official model from MAS. But not really as part of an army list. Traktor Mules and bikes will probably be about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High-jackable ground cars...maybe for special scenarios? As a general rule they might indeed unbalance the game but in a special scenario, say, a covert raid on a urban city street, that might work. Indeed, might even be the deliberate means of the attacking team escaping?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually vehicles wouldn't have to be a broken game mechanic. So long as we avoid things like Main Battle Tanks, Hover Gunships, High altitude satellite kinetic bombardment systems, Long ranger rolling artillery bombardments, and other little things found in a typical 40k game.

But things like Armored Jeeps, Troop trucks, Cars, Motorcycles, anti-grav skateboards and the like would probably fit very nicely onto a board in a smooth functional way.

Infinity to my way of thinking is a game of Black-Ops all the Human nations are at "peace" with each other. But that doesn't stop any of them from running illegal militarily operations all over the known universe. So its a game of small asymmetrical warfare in the 22nd century.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they'll be releasing gav vehicles, I think the only miniature wuthout legs or wheels is the meteor zond and I think it's just because the AD.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen that argued both ways. My Infinity has anti-grav cars (so I can use the ones from Antenociti); you can do what you like. :)

I'd like some rules for civilian cars; I've got the "Bill and Lady Bill" miniatures from Rogue Miniatures - they need a limo and Secret Service vehicles to ride in.

bill_lady_bill.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't 'Lady Bill' have a blue dress, Andrew?

The big problem with vehicles is making them balanced.

An armored vehicle, even a covertly-armored one like the Presidential limos, is flat unstoppable by small arms. We're talking armor 12+ in game terms, if not outright immune to everything but EXP ammo.

Conversely, a mere civilian car is about as bulletproof as tinfoil from most angles, but is also *really* hard to stop permanently. Probably ARM 0 and 5-6 structure points.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't 'Lady Bill' have a blue dress, Andrew?

The big problem with vehicles is making them balanced.

An armored vehicle, even a covertly-armored one like the Presidential limos, is flat unstoppable by small arms. We're talking armor 12+ in game terms, if not outright immune to everything but EXP ammo.

Conversely, a mere civilian car is about as bulletproof as tinfoil from most angles, but is also *really* hard to stop permanently. Probably ARM 0 and 5-6 structure points.

Except this civilian vehicle:

308_ToyotaHilux50.jpg

It's ARM 1, STR 15.

For cereal.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't 'Lady Bill' have a blue dress, Andrew?

I don't know; I didn't paint that one. :)

The big problem with vehicles is making them balanced.

An armored vehicle, even a covertly-armored one like the Presidential limos, is flat unstoppable by small arms. We're talking armor 12+ in game terms, if not outright immune to everything but EXP ammo.

About as armoured as a TAG, I'd say, and obviously susceptible to hacking, E/M, plasma, AP, EXP and Adhesive attacks. It'd be for a special scenario anyway, so no need to worry about coming up with generic rules.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think vehicles could work for scenarios if you limit their mobility severely, i.e. really fast but only on a section of road. That and treat them as cover for the units inside, rather than a separate object that has to be killed first. If you treat a car as a scenery element it's also immune to everything other than DA and explosive rounds which makes balancing ARM and structure values less crucial.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rules pertaining to scenery concerns clearing or breaching obstacles in order to grant further freedom of movement and line of fire. A vehicle can be destroyed (a burning wreck for example) but still be an obstacle to limit movement and obscure line of fire.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think vehicles could work for scenarios if you limit their mobility severely, i.e. really fast but only on a section of road. That and treat them as cover for the units inside, rather than a separate object that has to be killed first. If you treat a car as a scenery element it's also immune to everything other than DA and explosive rounds which makes balancing ARM and structure values less of crucial.

Ya know for civilians or convoys you could set the board up like mogadishu with road blocks and narrow alleys to make it more of a maze for something as rigid as a vehicle. Give it an 8-2 inch movement (same speed as a tag but slightly slower than a motorcycle) and an action per structure point (3 to start) . If it's like a hummer or technical (truck with a machine gun in the back) you give it the option to move and shoot with an HMG. If it's an apc you could give it a feurerbach or autocannon.

As for armor, mix it up. For a hummer give the engine armor 7 or 8 and the windows/crew compartments armor 5 or 6. If you aim at the crew its a -6 to hit and if you miss because of the -6 you hit the engine area. For civilian cars armor 4 all around would be ok, and for APC's move the armor up to 10.

Missles, Mines, HMGs, Autocannons, Feurerbachs, monofilament, sniper rifles, and even assault rifles can all take out lighter military vehicles and shred civilian stuff.

Anything heavier than an APC would be tough to do in infinity. The crit system would be odd as a pistol or knife should never be able to take out a tank, but then the armor necessary to do justice to a heavy tank would make it difficult for even heavily armed infantry from taking it out without a crit. You could however do sabotage missions with enemy armor depots. Make it a mission to put D-charges on a set of unmanned tanks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think the problem is that there's too wide a spectrum of possible vehicles to propose one monolithic way of representing them.

On the one hand, unarmored civilian vehicles are probably best modeled as somewhat complicated moving terrain. Give the engine an STR point and ARM, but the passenger compartment is really just worth cover, and apply the destroyable scenery rules to that. And give the driver a limited number of orders per turn that can be spent performing 'drive' to move the vehicle. If someone mounts a machine gun on the back of a pickup truck, then it's not much fuss to just add the tiny gun emplacement to the mobile scenery collective.

But I don't like the idea of applying misses against the engine to the passengers or vice versa. Keeping misses misses just makes things simpler.

For properly armored military vehicles, figuring out model statistics for the whole thing would probably be worth it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm probly the biggest thing we need is something like a Hummer or a Véhicule Blindé Léger its Frech (had to copy and paste) but even something like an APC would be to much. I would also give it less armor than a TaG but maybe more Str.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have given this topic some thought in the past and that is what I came up with:

On the practical side, CB is probably not gonna do it for a long time, because they don't have the means to produce different vehicles for the different factions and make money doing so.

Rules wise, vehicles probably would be doable, but problematic.

Complexity of the rules is not the problem. The driver gets an order, thats it. The owning player has to figure out how to get most of the vehicle.

Obviously, only civilian, humveeh types, and at most light APCs could find entry into Infinity games. The ARM and STR value of an APC should not be higher than that of a TAG, so I don't see a problem with that.

The first problem I see is with the gained mobility such vehicles would bring. You could transport 4-8 soldiers in such vehicles. They could be on the other side of the board and operating on first turn. Drawback is that if a moving vehicle gets struck by an autocannon or missile launcher in ARO, the owning player would lose the vehicle and probably a few of the passengers, which could mean an early end to that game. My ideas evolved around ground vehicles, now if you think about the hovering vehicles in the background, the mobility problem could become a game balance nightmare, I think. Getting the first turn is already powerful enough.

The second problem is with the points increase that the introduction of vehicles could bring. This could end up like Infinity turning into 40k. A vehicle would cost around 100 points, then everybody would want to have one, so you are looking at increased points per game. Someone smart figures out that it may be a good idea to get 10 guys instead of a vehicle, so the game designers have to streamline the rules to make it still playable at a higher point level. Not so great Imho.

Even though I think vehicles could be cool every now and then, I guess it is best for everybody for CB to keep their hands off that option.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I kind of like thinking of a lack of traditional vehicles in Infinity outside of fast mechanized apc style vehicles.

I feel the potential firepower a T.A.G. can mount makes up for a tank.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd enjoy the vehicle designs by MAS, I vote 'no' for vehicles.

Prohpet_of_Doom just posted my thoughts about vehicles. They won't really fit in the general (gaming) feel of I:tG.

Another point: just looking at the mere size of such vehicles would have, would result in different terrain placing and there would be a lot of fire corridors, if you want to allow a vehicle to really have some options to get somewhere. And this would be another shift in balance/game focus towards vehicles.

If you avoid creating such corridors, vehicles would be quite useless, so won't make any sense at all.

About the 'civilian' scenario vehicles: yes, please.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of good points raised here about vehicles.

Namely:

1. Vehicles require a lot of space to maneuver

2. Infinity boards don't have a lot of space, most games are reliant on cover obstructing firing lanes, if there are empty roads these are ARO deathtraps

3. The high movement and high transport capacity of vehicles unbalanced the first turn

4 .The point value of vehicles would require higher point games which would be a nightmare to run and play

All of which I can't help but agree with. I'd also like to supply the idea that vehicles are just wrong. The fluff behind infinity is that there are no open wars, operations are run by secret triple agents leading elite fireteams to complete objectives in a futile attempt to upset the balance of power in the courts for a faction to make a mad grab for just a little more power. There isn't time to mobilize and deploy large vehicles, instead lightweight aircraft which have been stripped down to a skeleton crew and loadout (to support the weight of the combat gear of the strike team being deployed) are constantly flitting about an ever changing war-zone of shifting alliances and power with double agents secretly being triple agents and triple agents who are actually just double agents.

Adding vehicles loses this feel of minimal strength maximum damage fireteams reminiscent of Ghost in the Shell or Appleseed, and if we lose that skirmish sci-fi feeling then what's the point?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of good points raised here about vehicles.

Namely:

1. Vehicles require a lot of space to maneuver

2. Infinity boards don't have a lot of space, most games are reliant on cover obstructing firing lanes, if there are empty roads these are ARO deathtraps

3. The high movement and high transport capacity of vehicles unbalanced the first turn

4 .The point value of vehicles would require higher point games which would be a nightmare to run and play

All of which I can't help but agree with. I'd also like to supply the idea that vehicles are just wrong. The fluff behind infinity is that there are no open wars, operations are run by secret triple agents leading elite fireteams to complete objectives in a futile attempt to upset the balance of power in the courts for a faction to make a mad grab for just a little more power. There isn't time to mobilize and deploy large vehicles, instead lightweight aircraft which have been stripped down to a skeleton crew and loadout (to support the weight of the combat gear of the strike team being deployed) are constantly flitting about an ever changing war-zone of shifting alliances and power with double agents secretly being triple agents and triple agents who are actually just double agents.

Adding vehicles loses this feel of minimal strength maximum damage fireteams reminiscent of Ghost in the Shell or Appleseed, and if we lose that skirmish sci-fi feeling then what's the point?

The thought of vehicles seems really cool, but these arguments are simply too logical to ignore. We shouldn't have vehicles other than as scenery.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I will be honest: give me some decent rules for 'borrowable' civilian vehicles, and I'd be all over those.

But full-on military hardware? No thanks, too hard to balance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites