Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I absolutely dispute that.

The idea that one of two choices must always beobjectively better than the other is absolutely laughable if you've played games with deeper decision-making, where different choices provide different capabilities rather than redundant, easily-compared ones. That's what we've been saying. Try to play Infinity with this spreadsheet mentality and you're going to lose.

That's laughably and provably false. Yes, if I as a human player try to play Infinity with a spreadsheet mentality I'm going to lose just the same as if I took the same approach to playing Chess or Go. However, there are objectively correct options and with enough time and computational power, any game that relies on logic can be mathematically optimized. Your arguing at a different and more limited scale than I am, I'm arguing that at an absolute scale no game can ever be balanced, at a human scale people think dice are actually random...

Okay, sure. In a specific circumstance, for a specific set of missions, it's theoretically possible with a universal computer to determine that Unit A operates at 102% efficiency, while Unit B is only 100% and Unit C is 99%.

No one is asking for absolutely, 100% perfect balance, because yes, that's not possible. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for BETTER balance-considering the mess that 40k is now, they could do a LOT better.

Canadian 5th has a major hangup with this.

"Situation A could be improved."
"IT CAN NEVER BE PERFECT SO WE SHOULDN'T EVEN TRY"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some units that can accomplish that task?

Which 30-man units do they have or are you suggesting that every army have a unique set of objectives for each mission? In that case how many pages would you expect these rules to take up?

[Citation needed]

Cute. Your first change requires lists to not match-up against one another which would fragment the game or require each player to have multiple armies. Your second requires players to buy models specifically for use in certain missions as a handicap to allow other armies to more easily defeat them. Neither of these changes are the type that one would expect to be popular.

40k hasn't been in the 8th/9th paradigm for "decades". 5th came out in 2008, so it hasn't even been in the 6th-8th edition paradigm for decades. In fact, it hasn't been a single decade since the release of 6th edition. Want to know what factions of the ones I listed existed in 5th edition 40k?

The Army (Imperial Guard)
The Catholic Church (Sisters of Battle)
The Marines (Marines)

I've played since 3rd and the armies you've excluded did exist in fluff before they were ever introduced to the tabletop. Aside from that 40k has grown both in terms of its model range but also its player base since then, would you suggest GW cut off its nose just because you think it spites its face?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some units that can accomplish that task?

Which 30-man units do they have or are you suggesting that every army have a unique set of objectives for each mission? In that case how many pages would you expect these rules to take up?

I'm the game designer - giving them their own access to 30 man units or writing them their own objectives are both fun and interesting opportunities to grow the game. Not terribly worried about page numbers in the theoretical stage of game design.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

[Citation needed]

Cute. Your first change requires lists to not match-up against one another which would fragment the game or require each player to have multiple armies. Your second requires players to buy models specifically for use in certain missions as a handicap to allow other armies to more easily defeat them. Neither of these changes are the type that one would expect to be popular.

That's how game design works, though. You change things to improve the game - even if they're temporarily not popular. There was this one time even GW did this with the fantasy->AOS transition; they upset a load of people but the game's much healthier now than it would've been if they kept fantasy on vegetative life support.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

40k hasn't been in the 8th/9th paradigm for "decades". 5th came out in 2008, so it hasn't even been in the 6th-8th edition paradigm for decades. In fact, it hasn't been a single decade since the release of 6th edition. Want to know what factions of the ones I listed existed in 5th edition 40k?

The Army (Imperial Guard)
The Catholic Church (Sisters of Battle)
The Marines (Marines)

I've played since 3rd and the armies you've excluded did exist in fluff before they were ever introduced to the tabletop. Aside from that 40k has grown both in terms of its model range but also its player base since then, would you suggest GW cut off its nose just because you think it spites its face?

I'm just proving your decades claim false, my friend. And it's okay for things to exist in fluff and not in rules. In fact, that's mandatory to appropriately scoping the game. After all, the FBI exists in the "fluff" behind the Vietnam War, but I still wouldn't expect to be able to field an army of FBI agents against an NVA T-55 armored column.

All of nerddom has been growing; it is hard to tell what state GW would be in if they hadn't released Sisters of Silence (or if sisters of silence were subsequently folded into the Imperial Guard as an elite unlockable unit or something).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
there it is, THATS what we mean and are looking for.

This proves nothing because the logical next statement is, "For any given selection of lists one list will be better than the other. Given that there can only be one best list, this leaves us with units within a single codex and codexes within the game's rules that are objectively worse than others." Thus balance is still flawed at any level.

Just having a mission where firepower isnt necessary and bodies are would make conscripts better than guardsmen and doesnt prevent other armies from playing them.

I'm unconvinced that it would. Firstly because firepower is always necessary unless we're proposing a mission in which forces are forbidden from attack one another, secondly because of the moral issues that conscripts have to keep them from replacing guardsmen again.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
there it is, THATS what we mean and are looking for.

This proves nothing because the logical next statement is, "For any given selection of lists one list will be better than the other. Given that there can only be one best list, this leaves us with units within a single codex and codexes within the game's rules that are objectively worse than others." Thus balance is still flawed at any level.

Prove Premise 1 ("For any given selection of lists one list will be better than the other.") across the literally infinite variety of mission types I could possibly think of. If you can't, it's false, because I will always be able to think of a mission at which that one list will do worse than a different list from the same selection.

Without proving Premise 1, Premise 2 ("Given that there can only be one best list, this leaves us with units within a single codex and codexes within the game's rules that are objectively worse than others.") falls flat.

Without premise 2, the conclusion does not follow.

Your argument is valid, but not sound.

No one is asking for absolutely, 100% perfect balance, because yes, that's not possible. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for BETTER balance-considering the mess that 40k is now, they could do a LOT better.

I've never disputed that claim. My dispute is that the work required to reach that state is never* going to be worth the effort either to GW as a company or an individual and thus this is all just wishing instead of fishing.

*To the extent that I can predict the near future at any rate. If we assume friendly intelligent superhuman AI this likely ceases to be an issue.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

No one is asking for absolutely, 100% perfect balance, because yes, that's not possible. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for BETTER balance-considering the mess that 40k is now, they could do a LOT better.

I've never disputed that claim. My dispute is that the work required to reach that state is never* going to be worth the effort either to GW as a company or an individual and thus this is all just wishing instead of fishing.

*To the extent that I can predict the near future at any rate. If we assume friendly intelligent superhuman AI this likely ceases to be an issue.

Roll back to the end of 4th edition, remove Holofields as wargear.

Boy, making 40k more balanced than it currently is sure was super difficult.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
there it is, THATS what we mean and are looking for.

This proves nothing because the logical next statement is, "For any given selection of lists one list will be better than the other. Given that there can only be one best list, this leaves us with units within a single codex and codexes within the game's rules that are objectively worse than others." Thus balance is still flawed at any level.

Just having a mission where firepower isnt necessary and bodies are would make conscripts better than guardsmen and doesnt prevent other armies from playing them.

I'm unconvinced that it would. Firstly because firepower is always necessary unless we're proposing a mission in which forces are forbidden from attack one another, secondly because of the moral issues that conscripts have to keep them from replacing guardsmen again.

If there are 10 varied missions in the pack, this means that there is 10 different lists that are the best at playing these for each army.
Unless you know what the mission will be beforehand, you will need to make concessions to figure out what list is good enough in all 10 missions, at the risk of running against a player that made a gamble and brought the list that is the best at the rolled mission.

Balance will never be perfect to a point where anyone can bring litterally any list against anyone else and still achieve a 50% winrate. We're not asking for that. We're not even asking anything, we're theorizing a game that uses the 40k universe but inspires itself from Infinity's design to make it more (in-game) skill based and balanced.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
this is all just wishing instead of fishing.

so now you understand the whole point of this thread you've so cleverly derailed?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm the game designer - giving them their own access to 30 man units or writing them their own objectives are both fun and interesting opportunities to grow the game. Not terribly worried about page numbers in the theoretical stage of game design.

So I'll fix this by fiat and not provide any actual examples of my ideas in a playable state.

That's how game design works, though. You change things to improve the game - even if they're temporarily not popular. There was this one time even GW did this with the fantasy->AOS transition; they upset a load of people but the game's much healthier now than it would've been if they kept fantasy on vegetative life support.

The AoS transition wasn't done because the game and its rules were poor but because there was no risk. Fantasy was dead either way so if they killed it a little more with a reset they lost nothing. 40k by comparison is what makes them the majority of their profits and would be a catastrophic risk to alter in any significant way. The change from 7th to 8th is tiny compared to what you're suggesting.

I'm just proving your decades claim false, my friend. And it's okay for things to exist in fluff and not in rules. In fact, that's mandatory to appropriately scoping the game. After all, the FBI exists in the "fluff" behind the Vietnam War, but I still wouldn't expect to be able to field an army of FBI agents against an NVA T-55 armored column.

All of nerddom has been growing; it is hard to tell what state GW would be in if they hadn't released Sisters of Silence (or if sisters of silence were subsequently folded into the Imperial Guard as an elite unlockable unit or something).

My claim was more about alienating current players and that the scope of 40k has always been vast and growing not narrow and shrinking, but you do you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm the game designer - giving them their own access to 30 man units or writing them their own objectives are both fun and interesting opportunities to grow the game. Not terribly worried about page numbers in the theoretical stage of game design.

So I'll fix this by fiat and not provide any actual examples of my ideas in a playable state.

Correct. I am not going to design a whole game for you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

That's how game design works, though. You change things to improve the game - even if they're temporarily not popular. There was this one time even GW did this with the fantasy->AOS transition; they upset a load of people but the game's much healthier now than it would've been if they kept fantasy on vegetative life support.

The AoS transition wasn't done because the game and its rules were poor but because there was no risk. Fantasy was dead either way so if they killed it a little more with a reset they lost nothing. 40k by comparison is what makes them the majority of their profits and would be a catastrophic risk to alter in any significant way. The change from 7th to 8th is tiny compared to what you're suggesting.

Correct, but none of that has to do with game design and everything to do with $$$$, which is not what this argument is about.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I'm just proving your decades claim false, my friend. And it's okay for things to exist in fluff and not in rules. In fact, that's mandatory to appropriately scoping the game. After all, the FBI exists in the "fluff" behind the Vietnam War, but I still wouldn't expect to be able to field an army of FBI agents against an NVA T-55 armored column.

All of nerddom has been growing; it is hard to tell what state GW would be in if they hadn't released Sisters of Silence (or if sisters of silence were subsequently folded into the Imperial Guard as an elite unlockable unit or something).

My claim was more about alienating current players and that the scope of 40k has always been vast and growing not narrow and shrinking, but you do you.

Perhaps when you are allowing FBI agents to battle the Yamato on the same tabletop, it's time for things to stop growing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[Prove Premise 1 ("For any given selection of lists one list will be better than the other.") across the literally infinite variety of mission types I could possibly think of. If you can't, it's false, because I will always be able to think of a mission at which that one list will do worse than a different list from the same selection.

You cannot think of an infinite number of mission types. For one, you'd never live long enough to compile them into a useable format. Secondly, it's unlikely that a bag of meat that can't even generate random numbers properly could actually generate such an array of logically distinct missions. Three, you've already stated that you refuse to do so. Four, any game that is playable is finite which includes its selection of playable missions and thus this entire premise is a fallacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Roll back to the end of 4th edition, remove Holofields as wargear.

Boy, making 40k more balanced than it currently is sure was super difficult.

Now do the hard part and get more than a small group of people to actually play this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I'm unconvinced that it would. Firstly because firepower is always necessary unless we're proposing a mission in which forces are forbidden from attack one another, secondly because of the moral issues that conscripts have to keep them from replacing guardsmen again.

If there are 10 varied missions in the pack, this means that there is 10 different lists that are the best at playing these for each army.
Unless you know what the mission will be beforehand, you will need to make concessions to figure out what list is good enough in all 10 missions, at the risk of running against a player that made a gamble and brought the list that is the best at the rolled mission.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Now do the hard part and get more than a small group of people to actually play this way.

thats actually the easiest part when you consider 40k's inertia. change the game to what they proposed and the playerbase will follow.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[Prove Premise 1 ("For any given selection of lists one list will be better than the other.") across the literally infinite variety of mission types I could possibly think of. If you can't, it's false, because I will always be able to think of a mission at which that one list will do worse than a different list from the same selection.

You cannot think of an infinite number of mission types. For one, you'd never live long enough to compile them into a useable format. Secondly, it's unlikely that a bag of meat that can't even generate random numbers properly could actually generate such an array of logically distinct missions. Three, you've already stated that you refuse to do so. Four, any game that is playable is finite which includes its selection of playable missions and thus this entire premise is a fallacy.

1) Yes I can. I can use the trick from earlier. "This mission's objectives can only be scored by units with a starting size of 1 model. 2 models. 3 models. ..." for every whole number. Bam, a countably infinite number of missions. Remove the cap on unit size and they become playable too.
2) I'm not concerned with what you consider "logically distinct" because that doesn't have any meaning and is a phrase you made up.
3) Yes, because why should I?
4) No, it's not. Because you were the one that made a absolute claim ("from a given set of lists, one list will always be the best"). All it takes is one counter-example to disprove an absolute, and I have provided a mechanism by which I could trivially derive a counter-example to your claim. I did not, of course, actually provide a counter-example because I thought providing a mechanism by which it could be derived would be sufficient, and that you would be able to derive a whole slew of counter-examples on your own.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Roll back to the end of 4th edition, remove Holofields as wargear.

Boy, making 40k more balanced than it currently is sure was super difficult.

Now do the hard part and get more than a small group of people to actually play this way.

In the interest of not being rude, I'll say this: If GW released 10th edition in 3 years and it was this, the vast majority of the playerbase would be available for you to play against.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So rather than determining the game via list building, which takes actual skill, we'll determine the game via randomization of which mission we'll play! This is brilliant, now we can just roll a single die and note our scores. It's much more efficient than playing.

Are you dense? randomized missions require MORE skill in listbuilding, since you need to figure out how you plan approaching every possible outcome.
It just makes the game less dependent on that part and more on the game itself.

I should really stop wrestling with pigs.....

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So rather than determining the game via list building, which takes actual skill, we'll determine the game via randomization of which mission we'll play! This is brilliant, now we can just roll a single die and note our scores. It's much more efficient than playing.

Are you dense? randomized missions require MORE skill in listbuilding, since you need to figure out how you plan approaching every possible outcome.
It just makes the game less dependent on that part and more on the game itself.

I should really stop wrestling with pigs.....

Yeah, I get where he's coming from usually even when he's wrong, but this statement is so alone and unsupported and nonobvious that I don't understand what the argument he is making even is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[Prove Premise 1 ("For any given selection of lists one list will be better than the other.") across the literally infinite variety of mission types I could possibly think of. If you can't, it's false, because I will always be able to think of a mission at which that one list will do worse than a different list from the same selection.

You cannot think of an infinite number of mission types. For one, you'd never live long enough to compile them into a useable format. Secondly, it's unlikely that a bag of meat that can't even generate random numbers properly could actually generate such an array of logically distinct missions. Three, you've already stated that you refuse to do so. Four, any game that is playable is finite which includes its selection of playable missions and thus this entire premise is a fallacy.

1) Yes I can. I can use the trick from earlier. "This mission's objectives can only be scored by units with a starting size of 1 model. 2 models. 3 models. ..." for every whole number. Bam, a countably infinite number of missions. Remove the cap on unit size and they become playable too.
2) I'm not concerned with what you consider "logically distinct" because that doesn't have any meaning and is a phrase you made up.
3) Yes, because why should I?
4) No, it's not. Because you were the one that made a absolute claim ("from a given set of lists, one list will always be the best"). All it takes is one counter-example to disprove an absolute, and I have provided a mechanism by which I could trivially derive a counter-example to your claim. I did not, of course, actually provide a counter-example because I thought providing a mechanism by which it could be derived would be sufficient, and that you would be able to derive a whole slew of counter-examples on your own.

1) Those missions are unplayable as you're more likely to get objectives that require more models than there are atoms in the universe than you are to get a number of models that are actually playable.
2) That game cannot be played as your rules generator can never actually calculate some of the numbers required to play the game. This is a fundamental limit on computing power and unavoidable simply by picking a countably infinite number of missions.
3) Logically distinct means not claiming a mission is unique because you place the objects a fraction of a Planck length differently or alter the board size or unit count by some equally unplayable amount as you've attempted to do.

All of the above means that the simple calculation is that your game is unplayable and thus its balance doesn't matter.

Above me is cringe argumentation

But that is the game decided by listbuilding. The opponent did the correct or incorrect decision to build a list around 1 mission instead of all missions. You seem to want the game to only have 1 possible "best" list for each faction and only reward the player who find that exact list and punish all the other players. No option for counter meta lists or gambles or different terrain setups.

That would only work if we removed variance from terrain and the options opponent could make. As long as a marine player could choose between 18 Eradicators or 18 Terminators and you dont know which he would take the best theoretical lists changes vastly. If you used a computer to find the best marine list in the world based on current missions and meta it would only stay the best list as long as no one changed anything. Maybe it is an all dreadnought list and people start playing that until 18 Eradicators appear in 50% of all lists. Then it is a crap list. Or if the table for the next game was all ruins your dreads cant walk into. The game you want dont allow that choice to happen. Playing around missions, terrain and the opponent is part of the game. The listbuilding isnt the main game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So rather than determining the game via list building, which takes actual skill, we'll determine the game via randomization of which mission we'll play! This is brilliant, now we can just roll a single die and note our scores. It's much more efficient than playing.

Are you dense? randomized missions require MORE skill in listbuilding, since you need to figure out how you plan approaching every possible outcome.
It just makes the game less dependent on that part and more on the game itself.

I should really stop wrestling with pigs.....

If your missions are truly random and you hold enough events or hold a single event with a large enough player base your system ensures that skew always wins and TAC always loses. I say this because mathematically you will achieve a run where a list that only does well at a single mission only plays that mission. For that player's entire run, assuming they face lists built as you intended, their game will be determined by the single roll of the dice. You would need to ensure that each player actually has to play more than a single type of mission, which randomization cannot and will not do, to achieve your goal.

What's your ideal game, C5?

What do you want to see happen?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
1) Those missions are unplayable as you're more likely to get objectives that require more models than there are atoms in the universe than you are to get a number of models that are actually playable.

Playability was not a requirement you placed in the post I was responding to. You just claimed I couldn't think of an infinite number of missions.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
2) That game cannot be played as your rules generator can never actually calculate some of the numbers required to play the game. This is a fundamental limit on computing power and unavoidable simply by picking a countably infinite number of missions.

Ah, but there is no human limit, because we can skip steps using ~intuition~. I don't need to know every digit of a googleplex to roughly understand that it's a big effing number and no units in my list have that many models.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
3) Logically distinct means not claiming a mission is unique because you place the objects a fraction of a Planck length differently or alter the board size or unit count by some equally unplayable amount as you've attempted to do.

Thanks for providing your definition. Still unconcerned with it because it still doesn't disprove my argument since it's just a made up thing.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
All of the above means that the simple calculation is that your game is unplayable and thus its balance doesn't matter.

Unplayable by a computer. Not unplayable by a person.

Here's the one mission my wargame has:
"Pick a countable whole number between one and infinity and secretly write it down. Roll off with your opponent. Whomever loses the rolloff flips their paper over. That is the number of models a unit must start with in order to be considered a scoring unit in this mission."

A computer could never solve that mission for the best list. One could argue there is no optimal list.

And yes it's a trivial example, because you've driven the argument to trivial absurdities by making an absolute claim and then requiring me to make a specific counter-example, instead of just accepting your absolute is wrong.

Klickor wrote:
But that is the game decided by listbuilding. The opponent did the correct or incorrect decision to build a list around 1 mission instead of all missions. You seem to want the game to only have 1 possible "best" list for each faction and only reward the player who find that exact list and punish all the other players. No option for counter meta lists or gambles or different terrain setups.

That would only work if we removed variance from terrain and the options opponent could make. As long as a marine player could choose between 18 Eradicators or 18 Terminators and you dont know which he would take the best theoretical lists changes vastly. If you used a computer to find the best marine list in the world based on current missions and meta it would only stay the best list as long as no one changed anything. Maybe it is an all dreadnought list and people start playing that until 18 Eradicators appear in 50% of all lists. Then it is a crap list. Or if the table for the next game was all ruins your dreads cant walk into. The game you want dont allow that choice to happen. Playing around missions, terrain and the opponent is part of the game. The listbuilding isnt the main game.

Even in that case, you'd simply collate tournament data, or even player data as a whole assuming you could track such effectively, and build around what you expect to face. You'd then simulate and repeat for each subsequent tournament based on the reaction to your last appearance and do that forever adding each new tournament to your dataset. You'd lose eventually through sheer chance* eventually but you'd give yourself the best possible odds of winning every game as are possible.

*Assuming you aren't using this same vast computing intelligence to shake its own dice, in which case they'd show exactly why dice aren't random.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What's your ideal game, C5?

What do you want to see happen?

My ideal game is one that keeps interesting discussions like this one happening in perpetuity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Playability was not a requirement you placed in the post I was responding to. You just claimed I couldn't think of an infinite number of missions.

You haven't actually thought up an infinite number of missions and instead of thought of a system for creating such a number of missions. There is a vast difference between the two.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What's your ideal game, C5?

What do you want to see happen?

My ideal game is one that keeps interesting discussions like this one happening in perpetuity.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i wouldn't exactly call this a discussion, its more akin to adults trying to explain something to a hyperactive child that has difficulty explaining their own opinion.

Yes, and looking at your typing I know which of us the child must be.

EDIT: The funny thing is you could have walked away at any time. So I must conclude that either you enjoy this as much as I do or that you lack the self-control to step away from the forum when a threat is frustrating you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i wouldn't exactly call this a discussion, its more akin to adults trying to explain something to a hyperactive child that has difficulty explaining their own opinion.

Yes, and looking at your typing I know which of us the child must be.

EDIT: The funny thing is you could have walked away at any time. So I must conclude that either you enjoy this as much as I do or that you lack the self-control to step away from the forum when a threat is frustrating you.

"If everybody leaves, that means i've won"

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
"If everybody leaves, that means i've won"

No no, my sweet summer Herzog, if everybody leaves I lose. I'm doing this because I enjoy it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You haven't actually thought up an infinite number of missions and instead of thought of a system for creating such a number of missions. There is a vast difference between the two.

Right. I demonstrated that an infinite number of missions is not logically impossible (merely physically impossible) and gave you the tools to generate it yourself. That's far more powerful than generating them all for you. But since you want to see an actual countably infinite number of missions, have at it, buddy! Now you have the power!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You haven't actually thought up an infinite number of missions and instead of thought of a system for creating such a number of missions. There is a vast difference between the two.

Right. I demonstrated that an infinite number of missions is not logically impossible (merely physically impossible) and gave you the tools to generate it yourself. That's far more powerful than generating them all for you. But since you want to see an actual countably infinite number of missions, have at it, buddy! Now you have the power!

It's really a shame you're so awful at turning your definitions of things into something that actually works... Just look at your rousing success at defining elite infantry!

Nope, we're done here.