Brother G

Vehicles in Infinity

302 posts in this topic

Yep, that's the Hercules, or the '88'. We hardly ever put the 'M' in front of her.

Also, here's something a buddy shared on the Dream Pod 9 forums. For those of you who don't get the Military Channel from the U.S.:

To give you an idea, this was one company (i.e. 14 tanks and 2 Bradley IFVs) that did all this. Sit back, have a cigarette, drink some coffee, eat some ice cream, and enjoy!

-Brandon F.

Edit: Correction, 2 companies. Want to be sure for posterity's sake. But by God, that poor scout lieutenant... 19 Deltas. "We're scouts, we don't go toe-to-toe with tanks. Aw s**t, where is Eagle Troop?!" XD

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll watch it once I get back home - YT is blocked where I'm now :P

Edit:

Well, you have pretty big armored companies there - 14 MBTs + 2 IFVs...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that our TO&E is meant for more flexibility in combat situations. With the CO and XO both mounted in tanks, the other three line platoons with 4 tanks apiece, we can cover a lot of ground. The lieutenant's decision at 73 Easting proves the point that swift, decisive action is better than holding ground. The Iraqis were trained to a good standard, but they were caught with their engines offline, so their gunners were resorting to manual handcranks... I included some rules for that, as well, but it is a pain in the butt, let me tell you. Nothing close as fast as hydraulics.

Our standard engagement ranges for tanks exceeds 1200 meters. At anything less than 800, we consider that a knife fight. At the ranges they describe, and like in Baghdad during the Thunder Run of '03, it's not something we exactly go into looking for.

Infinity's model is at substantially less than 800 meters. It's a range that tankers typically consider dangerous because even with the cheaper RPG-7, there is still the opportunity for the weapon systems to have a clear LoS into our more vulnerable compartments. Once that happens, our only chance is to use superior firepower to overwhelm our opponents. In the case of some situations (like among civilian populations), this is severely hampered, and really is to our detriment. But if total war is the case, than it's the second push into Fallujah, where the civilians have been told to evacuate and warned that they're better off leaving rather than take chances that something won't happen around them.

-Brandon F.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M88 is manufactured by BAE, which is not an official partner of CB. Please remove references to it, as they are not in compliance with forum policy.

Thank you.

As an additional caution to players, the M88 is the wrong scale for Infinity, and it costs over $2,000,000.00, something that the above posters neglected to mention.

1

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.

I think this is pretty much spot on if you are going to use vehicles. antenocities do an awesome range that would be perfect for infinity, You've got police and civilian cars, various grav bikes, apc type things and even a grav tank. I saw on beasts of war that they are doing a drop ship soon and something along the lines of a small tag which looks like it could fit in nicely with haqqislam. Can't wait for those puppies!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while this has been a great discussion about real world armor, i think we're getting away from something more important than the tactical feasibility of armored vehicles on the infinity table: practical manufacture and sale of models. game balance has been mentioned and i think that's the most important part of it, but models are right next to that. i gave up on 40k because of the shift of making tanks super cheap in cost so that in order to stand any chance whatsoever on the table you had to win with your wallet. game cost cheap + real world cost expensive makes me really irritated.

how many people play with the mag guard? how many tables have you played on that a mag guard can zoom around with no problem and little to no restriction to it's maneuver choices? any vehicle would have to be at least the size of the mag guard to remain in scale.

i'm sorry, but it's just a bad idea. CB already has their hands full producing TAGs. i just can't see folks rushing out to spend another $50+ on a model that will have trouble maneuvering on what i would expect to be most 'normal' (ie: good) infinity tables.

i love tanks. kind of obsessed with them. but (shockingly and sadly) i believe there are some places they just don't work. if you bring armor onto the battlefield, you'd better bring artillery and air support. and then we should just play flames of war and heavy gear. or go back to 40k.

i think it may actually be the end of the world coming, because i'm in a 'keep tanks out of my infinity' movement. besides hammer's slammers and dominion (and venus wars), how often do tanks show up in the bulk of popular anime/sci-fi, infinity's roots? and when they do show up, as in real life, they dominate.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all of this I would have to agree, tanks would ruin this game. APCs and IFVs would too, maybe some light skins for scenario (the saloon's kill the truck comes to mind), but I like the infantry small arms tactics and that's what lead me to this game, that and the TAGs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair's fair. I respect my seniors in these matters. ;)

-Brandon F.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I mentioned that I'd rather see cars & vans before anything heavier.

Apart form that - the topic is a fun read, and a good discussion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Brandon, I think you hit the nail on the head as to why tanks and IFVs aren't on the Infinity table:

Infinity's model is at substantially less than 800 meters. It's a range that tankers typically consider dangerous because even with the cheaper RPG-7, there is still the opportunity for the weapon systems to have a clear LoS into our more vulnerable compartments. Once that happens, our only chance is to use superior firepower to overwhelm our opponents. In the case of some situations (like among civilian populations), this is severely hampered, and really is to our detriment. But if total war is the case, than it's the second push into Fallujah, where the civilians have been told to evacuate and warned that they're better off leaving rather than take chances that something won't happen around them.

It feels like Infinity ops are so short-notice that there's no time to tell the civvies to escape.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is true enough, Section. Sometimes I fumble around with just explaining things, and I end up explaining the answers without realizing it. I have enjoyed discussing the details however, as I share my seniors' and companions' passion for the war machine. I'm certain I'll never stop hearing it from others that 'you're not in the Army anymore', but I suppose that passion will remain for many years to come, supplanted as it will be by family, friends, and good times, eventually.

Nobody on Earth but tankers can tell you how it feels to be cooped up, hot, sweating, with dirt and grime ingrained into your fingers, eating food that's sat next to cherry juice and oil cans long enough that they've still got the smell on the MRE bags, chugging down hot water from a bottle and ice-cold Cokes from the icebox in the turret bustle, waiting for something to pop off, and then getting the call, slapping your gear on you and riding out hard and heavy.

I'm trying with all my might not to smile as I write that, but I really can't.

In the meantime, however, I'll keep working on these little fan-made rules and whatnot, and I'll still enjoy discussing things with everyone. I've heard of World of Tanks a lot, but my little laptop is refurbished and can't handle the strain of playing the game, so I'll fail in meeting everyone here on the field. But hey, the price you pay.

Peace. And Merry Christmas!

-Brandon F.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been five years for me now, and I can still smell the FRH, the cordite, and the sound of the mother$&*@ing left track torsion screw popping and spraying grease, the woman says I still mutter firecommands in my sleep... I miss you sheila

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

had to go through some dust to find these. all your fault, brandon :) thank you.

first we have a camera on the t-bar pic from grafenwohr

mask-1.jpg

then a nice view of when favae soso tuialamoto threw track under the hull. 14 hours and an 88 later, we were rolling around hohenfels again. yay. -_- (i'm behind the camera. the taller fellow is our gunner, odegard)tui.jpg

then a couple years later and a few days after arriving in saudi. probably taken around jan 8th of '91. i'm the cocky tool wearing the gargoyles with bayonet affixed.

saudi.jpg

amongst the dust and these pics, i also found a couple others that i thought i'd share, just cuz.

me, an 18 year old jackass right out of boot. spent my whopping $1,500 enlistment bonus on a new toy.

punkninja.jpg

and dad. he's the scrawny one second from the right. man those cunt caps are sexy. fuck you guys that came in later and got to wear berets. :P

dadtank.jpg

and dad next to his 'toy'. he wins. a 1970 LS6 454. $3,500 brand new. and no, he didn't hand it down to his only son. he sold it to a little old lady. who promptly wrapped it around a tree. :_crying__rvmp_by_bad_blood: :_crying__rvmp_by_bad_blood: :_crying__rvmp_by_bad_blood:

dadchevelle.jpg

"strike swiftly"

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd add that something like a really light and small could work. I enjoy Infinity and its the only wargame that is getting attention these days and thats mostly because its a small scale skirmish game. I would prefer to stay with the Ghost in the Shell feel than move towards something else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corvus Belli is a commercial enterprise.

When they find that they can sell a vehicle product line profitably, rules for vehicles will materialize.

Fanboys will laud the terrific extension of the game. Old Guard will lament that the game will never be the same.

The rules will seem unbalanced at first and people will cry that their faction didn't get a good vehicle. Equilibrium will return or at least the shouting on all sides will equal out.

As for the physics of how the vehicle operates: We all play a game where a TAG attached to 9 cheerleaders runs/shoots 5 times as fast as an identical TAG attached to 1 cheerleader. I don't think any of us are sticklers for realistic physics in our game system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all of us, 'Old Guard' and newcomers, would prefer that any new stuff not break the game.

As finely balanced as Infinity is, adding something that is utterly invulnerable to rifles as anything other than terrain is going to cause all sorts of disruptions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while Corvus Belli may be a commercial enterprise, it is still run by the people who invented the game, and who actually care about it.

As opposed to a company that is managed and owned by people who never bought a wargame miniature in their lives.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the physics of how the vehicle operates: We all play a game where a TAG attached to 9 cheerleaders runs/shoots 5 times as fast as an identical TAG attached to 1 cheerleader. I don't think any of us are sticklers for realistic physics in our game system.

Werewolves would be a much better example for dodgy physics.

The TAG with more Orders is only shooting faster if you think in terms of Infinity turns rather than orders having a fixed duration. If you think in terms of the bigger force being able to outmanoeuvre the opposition and therefore able to do more, there is no physics problem.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No vehicles thank you. Its the future. War as changed. REMs and TAGs have replaced tanks and light armored vehicles. Why send men to do a job a REM can do. The US is already doing that with drones.

Also, I certainly don't want to play a second world war «in the future» game... which is what 40K is after all.

One time we had 4 civilian vehicles moving along roads - as in civilians fleeing the battle scene. They moved 4-2 per turn. One player of course put a TO camo in the back of a pick-up... and thus got to move his TO for free until he had a clean shot to a valuable target... a brilliant idea - but game changing effects. Not sure I want to have to make intuitive template shots on every vehicule that approaches just in case there is a TO camo along for the ride...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corvus Belli is a commercial enterprise.

When they find that they can sell a vehicle product line profitably, rules for vehicles will materialize.

Fanboys will laud the terrific extension of the game. Old Guard will lament that the game will never be the same.

The rules will seem unbalanced at first and people will cry that their faction didn't get a good vehicle. Equilibrium will return or at least the shouting on all sides will equal out.

As for the physics of how the vehicle operates: We all play a game where a TAG attached to 9 cheerleaders runs/shoots 5 times as fast as an identical TAG attached to 1 cheerleader. I don't think any of us are sticklers for realistic physics in our game system.

i like how the arguments that those opposed make are completely ignored by you. and how you can see into our minds and report our true feelings about what we think vehicles will do.

it's not about physics. for the love of all that is unholy, it's not about physics or even time. as IJW said, the order system is an abstract representation of the overall maneuverability of a force. when people stop looking at a players turn as a representation of the passage of time as it often is in other games, rpg's especially, then they'll realize that the act of 'ramboing' isn't unfair/unrealistic. it perfectly represents the cinematic feel of a crazy anime/action movie scene.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like how the arguments that those opposed make are completely ignored by you. and how you can see into our minds and report our true feelings about what we think vehicles will do.

I think my ex-wife will echo your opinion about my inability to read minds. :D And I don't mean to downplay your opinions at all -- just offer my own.

After re-reading my post, I do have to apologize for coming off a little more cynical about CB than intended. They have shown themselves as a group of designers that care so they don't deserve their intentions to be sullied. I stand by my opinion that when they have an economically viable means to offer an extension to the game, they will. They're smart business people in addition to being good game designers.

As for physics, I agree that the game system isn't about physics -- it's a game about fun. The visuals and cinematics are what either seize you or turn you off. I only offer the physics comment because I saw lots of pages of people talking about the details of how fighting vehicles would need to operate -- informed and very experienced contributors. IMHO: Infinity will not offer a deep, detailed, physics-friendly solution for vehicles. And that's ok with me as long as it's fun and balanced.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when people stop looking at a players turn as a representation of the passage of time as it often is in other games, rpg's especially, then they'll realize that the act of 'ramboing' isn't unfair/unrealistic. it perfectly represents the cinematic feel of a crazy anime/action movie scene.

I've always thought of it as sort of actually watching a movie. Each group of spent orders is like a scene. The camera cuts between scenes as the players spend orders on different models. The audience doesn't know when exactly a scene occurs chronologically in the story, and we almost never watch two scenes simultaneously. So when a TAG on the left side of the board executes six orders, and in the same player turn a linked team executes two orders on the right side, these events may occur simultaneously, near simultaneously, or even sequentially. And they may or may not take the same amount of time.

I've found that thinking of it like I described above helped me understand orders better, and really helped me enjoy the game, especially the narrative aspect of it. It is cenematic after all! :D

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my part the main nono for vehicles it that it breaks the theme of the game for me. It is already cemented in my mind as a infantry based game and I like it that way. If this changed I'd be dissapointed even if it was well balanced and thought out in the fluff and reasonable that spec op teams used these vehicles because comes first gameplay first then fluff. The fluff should adapt to the gameplay not the other way around.

That's what CB has done so far (unlike certain games where fluff is completely unsupported in the gameplay mechanics!). They wanted an infantry heavy game and adapted the fluff around that with "TAGs replaced tanks". Of course since vehicles are mentioned in the rulebook, who knows what will happen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reported again. What a nasty beast...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites