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.

 Horst wrote:
I've never really been clear on that argument. Competitive players want balanced rules. Why is that a bad thing? Can you give any examples where a more balanced competitive rules set is bad for casual players?

It's not so much bad, but it can make the game feel stale. Warmahordes is another classic example of this. Great competitive game (for the most part). Solid rules. Absolutely abysmal for casual and narrative play. Now I won't say this is 100% the fault of the rules, but I did get the vibe even discussing it casually that the rules prevented a laid back approach to the game, because they had all of those "system mastery" things the competitive players desired. It felt, to me and my group at the time, that there was such a deep complexity of rules that it actively worked against the feel of a non-competitive/narrative playstyle where you aren't doing laser-guided precision movement to set up combos or using proxy bases to exactly measure out your ranges. While everyone wants clean play, there's a point I feel where the game feels *too* laser-guided precise to really be what people expect a laid back game to have. Warmahordes crossed that threshold with Mk2 (I didn't play Mk1 but it felt closer to Warhammer's style at the time, and less precision-based tournament rules)

So it's not a case of balanced rules being bad, it's a fact that there's a threshold where a game balanced for tournament play feels clinical and too surgically precise to encourage casual play or make casual play enjoyable. Again, I can only speak to Warmahordes because that's the only real game I've played other than Warhammer (I'm picking up Flames of War now but have only had one small demo game) but I can absolutely state that the game felt like it wasn't conducive at all to anything outside of competitive (varying degrees, not necessarily world championship level gameplay) Steamroller scenarios. Even trying to play it in a narrative style felt pretty much like Warhammer usually feels when you're trying to play it hardcore competitive: Like pushing a round peg into a square hole. The game's rules, great as they were, just didn't feel right or suitable for a more narrative style of gaming.

40k's rules are actually pretty decently balanced at the moment though. Ask any competitive player who plays in tournaments, and they'll pretty much say the same thing. Most armies have at least 1 competitive build, and all it would take to make some armies even better is slight tweaks or changes to their existing rules. For example, Eldar probably need to have their minus to hit stacking nerfed. Necrons probably need Warriors reduced in points cost, as well as lychguards and flayed ones. Tyranids needs points reductions to some of their larger monstrous creatures since they're a bit too expensive for how easy they die.

Most competitive players aren't arguing for a massive re-working of the rules, so if 40k is OK for casual now, there's no reason it has to change to accommodate competitive players, outside of minor tweaks like outlined above, which I don't see having a negative effect on casual play. The only codex that basically needs a full rework is Grey Knights, since they are just poorly designed... they need some massive reworking.

So I don't really see the "competitive rules will kill 40k" argument as valid, because the rules as they are now work pretty well for competitive 40k. Unless the argument is that the current rules set is already bad for casuals, but I don't quite buy that argument.

The reason that the current rules set is not really ideal for casuals is that it requires social engineering for a casual player to get a good game against someone that wants to powergame.

A good game to me would not have much of a gulf of difference. A balanced game if you will where both players come to the table with a force that is roughly equivalent and then how they play matters most.

The biggest reason that casuals and competitive players have such a large gulf of difference though (at least when it comes to list strength) is that there are a lot of "trap" units in this game that are seriously underpowered for their in game cost. Like, a player might want to run a fluffy ultramarines battle company... tactical marines in rhinos and assault marines. All competitive players will agree (not hyperbole, I'd be willing to bet all would agree on this) that those units absolutely need buffs since they are nearly useless.

It's a relatively minor adjustment within the current rules framework. So competitive players want the same thing, more viable unit choices. Tactical marines could easily fill a role Primaris marines don't, that of cheaper, more versatile troops while the Primaris Intercessor squads are more expensive anti-infantry dedicated troops.

If the game has "useless" units in it, then competitive players will want them buffed to make them viable options, and casual players would also want them buffed so that they can actually field what they want without feeling gimped. Seems win-win. The current rules set seems to be moving towards this, with mostly positive balance changes (outside of some infuriatingly bad ones, my poor Porphyrion....) so things are looking optimistic IMO.

Speaking of, they're just piling on the buffs now:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/08/07/space-marines-preview-new-unitsgw-homepage-post-1/

Yea, I saw that. Rules like that might make Tac marines viable again, but I shudder to think of what Imperial Fist Centurions will be like now. They were already pretty good, they're gonna be mass murder machines now, with AP-2 on their heavy bolters, or AP-1 on their regular bolters.

We'll see how much things cost and how the Vigilus stratagems interact with them.

 Horst wrote:
I've never really been clear on that argument. Competitive players want balanced rules. Why is that a bad thing? Can you give any examples where a more balanced competitive rules set is bad for casual players?

BECAUSE ITC might aswell be 40 v1.2 and NOT 40k
Not everyone plays with magic boxes.
etc.

Meaning that balancing around the competitive side has unforseen and questionable results on the other end of the spectrum.
that difficult to understand?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:
Yea, I saw that. Rules like that might make Tac marines viable again, but I shudder to think of what Imperial Fist Centurions will be like now. They were already pretty good, they're gonna be mass murder machines now, with AP-2 on their heavy bolters, or AP-1 on their regular bolters.

We'll see how much things cost and how the Vigilus stratagems interact with them.

DIY chapters gonna be "fun"

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I've never really been clear on that argument. Competitive players want balanced rules. Why is that a bad thing? Can you give any examples where a more balanced competitive rules set is bad for casual players?

BECAUSE ITC might aswell be 40 v1.2 and NOT 40k
Not everyone plays with magic boxes.
etc.

Meaning that balancing around the competitive side has unforseen and questionable results on the other end of the spectrum.
that difficult to understand?

Does it? Like really? Is spamming Daemon Princes and Flyrants great for the non-ITC crowd too? Was the Castellan super fun outside of ITC?

Admittedly, I find it rather frustrating that GW doesn't do more to take the reigns of competitive play back from the ITC or that tournaments don't do more to incorporate the latest Chapter Approved scenarios; I just don't see casual environments taking any real negative collateral in the process.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I've never really been clear on that argument. Competitive players want balanced rules. Why is that a bad thing? Can you give any examples where a more balanced competitive rules set is bad for casual players?

BECAUSE ITC might aswell be 40 v1.2 and NOT 40k
Not everyone plays with magic boxes.
etc.

Meaning that balancing around the competitive side has unforseen and questionable results on the other end of the spectrum.
that difficult to understand?

Magic boxes are NOT an ITC rule, they are an LVO rule specifically. They are not interchangable, not all ITC events have magic boxes (in fact many do not).

The ONLY rules modification ITC makes to 40k (outside of custom mission win/loss conditions, which is not really a rules change, just a custom mission) is first level of ruins blocks line of sight, which I see as a thing that would only benefit casual players, since it gives you more hiding places for your units.

GW shouldn't balance around ITC missions, the ITC missions should balance around GW's rules. Which they are doing, they've been adding new secondary objectives / changing how the ITC missions work based on what new units / rules come out for new models.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I've never really been clear on that argument. Competitive players want balanced rules. Why is that a bad thing? Can you give any examples where a more balanced competitive rules set is bad for casual players?

BECAUSE ITC might aswell be 40 v1.2 and NOT 40k
Not everyone plays with magic boxes.
etc.

Meaning that balancing around the competitive side has unforseen and questionable results on the other end of the spectrum.
that difficult to understand?

Does it? Like really? Is spamming Daemon Princes and Flyrants great for the non-ITC crowd too? Was the Castellan super fun outside of ITC?

Admittedly, I find it rather frustrating that GW doesn't do more to take the reigns of competitive play back from the ITC or that tournaments don't do more to incorporate the latest Chapter Approved scenarios; I just don't see casual environments taking any real negative collateral in the process.

That's the issue at the core.
GW simply for whatever reason feths up the rules.Good the competitive crowd fixes theirs.
GW now balances around the meta in there, which was fixed there.

In the end no ones happy.

Some pages back i said i am a mostly casual player, but i'd like for GW to pull the fingers out of their backside and balance them propperly in the CORE GAME.

No instead they look torwards the tournament circus and adapt points according to that.

Magic boxes are NOT an ITC rule, they are an LVO rule specifically. They are not interchangable, not all ITC events have magic boxes (in fact many do not).

The ONLY rules modification ITC makes to 40k (outside of custom mission win/loss conditions, which is not really a rules change, just a custom mission) is first level of ruins blocks line of sight, which I see as a thing that would only benefit casual players, since it gives you more hiding places for your units.

GW shouldn't balance around ITC missions, the ITC missions should balance around GW's rules. Which they are doing, they've been adding new secondary objectives / changing how the ITC missions work based on what new units / rules come out for new models.

IF GW would actually balance propperly in the first place you would not have to sole that by the tournament organizers.

I mean... you're wrong here. The competitive crowd doesn't just "fix" GW's rules. There was an issue with daemon prince spam / flyrant spam, until GW implemented the rule of 3. ITC didn't do that... that was GW changing that rule.

Sure, GW balanced it around competitive players abusing the rules in a way that wasn't intended. So they changed it. Anyone playing a Flyrant/Prince spam list in casual play wasn't a casual player in the first place, because that is absolutely a powergamer move.

They look towards the tournaments to see what units are over/under performing, because honestly where else are they going to pull data points from? If you need to balance something, you need a large well defined data set, and websites like 40kstats.com are making it increasingly easy to pull that info and analyze to see what is over and under performing.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Does it? Like really? Is spamming Daemon Princes and Flyrants great for the non-ITC crowd too? Was the Castellan super fun outside of ITC?

Admittedly, I find it rather frustrating that GW doesn't do more to take the reigns of competitive play back from the ITC or that tournaments don't do more to incorporate the latest Chapter Approved scenarios; I just don't see casual environments taking any real negative collateral in the process.

That's the issue at the core.
GW simply for whatever reason feths up the rules.Good the competitive crowd fixes theirs.
GW now balances around the meta in there, which was fixed there.

In the end no ones happy.

Some pages back i said i am a mostly casual player, but i'd like for GW to pull the fingers out of their backside and balance them propperly in the CORE GAME.

No instead they look torwards the tournament circus and adapt points according to that.

What is the Core Game though? Is your argument in favor of a one shot approach to rules? Get it right the first time or not at all? That would certainly be ideal, but even the best companies out there fail at that ideal. There's always going to be an element of change and reacting to the playerbase in multiplayer gaming. GW should certainly do better, but with 8th edition we're at least seeing them using the practices that can get them there.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Does it? Like really? Is spamming Daemon Princes and Flyrants great for the non-ITC crowd too? Was the Castellan super fun outside of ITC?

Admittedly, I find it rather frustrating that GW doesn't do more to take the reigns of competitive play back from the ITC or that tournaments don't do more to incorporate the latest Chapter Approved scenarios; I just don't see casual environments taking any real negative collateral in the process.

That's the issue at the core.
GW simply for whatever reason feths up the rules.Good the competitive crowd fixes theirs.
GW now balances around the meta in there, which was fixed there.

In the end no ones happy.

Some pages back i said i am a mostly casual player, but i'd like for GW to pull the fingers out of their backside and balance them propperly in the CORE GAME.

No instead they look torwards the tournament circus and adapt points according to that.

What is the Core Game though? Is your argument in favor of a one shot approach to rules? Get it right the first time or not at all? That would certainly be ideal, but even the best companies out there fail at that ideal. There's always going to be an element of change and reacting to the playerbase in multiplayer gaming. GW should certainly do better, but with 8th edition we're at least seeing them using the practices that can get them there.

Yes, i'd like a competently written ruleset that does not need special missions to be used for competitive play compared to standard / casual play.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:
I mean... you're wrong here. The competitive crowd doesn't just "fix" GW's rules. There was an issue with daemon prince spam / flyrant spam, until GW implemented the rule of 3. ITC didn't do that... that was GW changing that rule.

Sure, GW balanced it around competitive players abusing the rules in a way that wasn't intended. So they changed it. Anyone playing a Flyrant/Prince spam list in casual play wasn't a casual player in the first place, because that is absolutely a powergamer move.

They look towards the tournaments to see what units are over/under performing, because honestly where else are they going to pull data points from? If you need to balance something, you need a large well defined data set, and websites like 40kstats.com are making it increasingly easy to pull that info and analyze to see what is over and under performing.

can you say the same about cultists?
F.e.?
Or the malefic lord?

let's face it. alot of the issues casual and competitive players face have to do with GW beeing bad at rules.
There should not be special mission rules for competitive.
There should also not a rule of three exist (because it's an obvious bandaid)

Not Online!!! wrote:
BECAUSE ITC might aswell be 40 v1.2 and NOT 40k
Not everyone plays with magic boxes.
etc.

Meaning that balancing around the competitive side has unforseen and questionable results on the other end of the spectrum.
that difficult to understand?

"Different" and "unforeseeable" are not the same as "bad for casual play". Some competitive events have problems with magic boxes because they use inappropriate terrain pieces, but the general rule of the first floor blocking LOS is a great change for everyone whether they're competitive or not.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yes, i'd like a competently written ruleset that does not need special missions to be used for competitive play compared to standard / casual play.

There should also not a rule of three exist (because it's an obvious bandaid)

Generally speaking the idea of "my deck vs your deck" with no scenario doesn't work in minis games. They need a scenario to force engagement because of threat ranges and the like. Those missions don't need to be "special" (I won't say I'm a fan of ITC secondaries) but something needs to exist.

Rule of 3 is pretty much just a standard rule for any game system at this point. I honestly can't think of a system that gets by without something like it. It's less a band aid and more of a safety net. Even if it wasn't "needed", I greatly appreciate a game system that tells me "I promise you will never have to buy 2000 points of a single model to be competitive". I can't say I can really think of a situation where I'd really want taking more than 3 of anything to be anything other than a mistake.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yes, i'd like a competently written ruleset that does not need special missions to be used for competitive play compared to standard / casual play.

There should also not a rule of three exist (because it's an obvious bandaid)

Generally speaking the idea of "my deck vs your deck" with no scenario doesn't work in minis games. They need a scenario to force engagement because of threat ranges and the like. Those missions don't need to be "special" (I won't say I'm a fan of ITC secondaries) but something needs to exist.

Rule of 3 is pretty much just a standard rule for any game system at this point. I honestly can't think of a system that gets by without something like it. It's less a band aid and more of a safety net. Even if it wasn't "needed", I greatly appreciate a game system that tells me "I promise you will never have to buy 2000 points of a single model to be competitive". I can't say I can really think of a situation where I'd really want taking more than 3 of anything to be anything other than a mistake.

Ehh.
In a wargame i shouldn't be able from the get go to just field one unit type and dominate in the first place.
That's the issue with it for me atleast.

And a fine issue to have, its just a matter of making it a reality. I haven't found a game system yet that pulls it off without some sort of rule to do so. Warmachine has Warjack Points and FA, Infinity has SWC; Malifaux has a cap on every model that usually doesn't go above 3, Guild Ball made everyone unique. It's a fine ideal, but mechanically reality seems to encourage redundancy.

Funny enough, missions that require a variety of unit times seems to be one of the only mechanical ways to demand diversity beyond outright banning homogeneity.

 LunarSol wrote:
And a fine issue to have, its just a matter of making it a reality. I haven't found a game system yet that pulls it off without some sort of rule to do so. Warmachine has Warjack Points and FA, Infinity has SWC; Malifaux has a cap on every model that usually doesn't go above 3, Guild Ball made everyone unique. It's a fine ideal, but mechanically reality seems to encourage redundancy.

Funny enough, missions that require a variety of unit times seems to be one of the only mechanical ways to demand diversity beyond outright banning homogeneity.

That or go BA 's Route.
But then again gw Mission Design was always a bit on the, shall we say, wierder side?

 Sqorgar wrote:

crimsyn wrote:
Sqorgar is right...

Can we just take a moment and recognize the wisdom of this fine poster?

No, you've been by far the biggest jerk in this entire thread, every post you make is about how awful competitive players are and how they should feel bad for having fun in a non sqorgar approved way. You are the reason why there's such a divide.

Basically, competitive gaming communities are notoriously unwelcoming to new players (less new players coming it)

This sentiment is absolute hogwash. I'm sure there are some cases where competitive players are unwelcoming to new players, but by and large I would say that competitive players drive far more people to the game then casual players ever do. After all they have a much more vested interest in having more players in the game than casual players do. Most gaming clubs I have seen are run by competitive players (I'm sure not all), most players I see in stores eventually run tournaments and the TO is typically a competitive player, and that player is the one that advertises the event and brings in new players to the store. Heck I'm sure many casual players play with their group of friends at their house...how does that bring anyone into the game? No one sees them playing. Or they show up to a store with a game with their buddy already set up and maybe they talk to a new player but that player doesn't get a game in. I've also seen the circumstance where people refuse to play a player with a specific army list they perceive as cheesy as many or more times as I have seen competitive players refuse a game because they want tournament practice.

Just going off my own personal experience.

I a competitive player played a lot of tournaments back in 5th edition, mostly at my local stores, because that is when I knew I could get in games and the tables would be available. At the end of 5th edition I took over running those tournaments because the former organizer was changing roles at the shop and did not get to play a lot and did not know the 6th ed rules, around the same time I also for similar reasons took over running the tournaments at a local Anime/Gaming/Sci-fi convention. IN both cases I advertised more than was done previously and brought in more people. I actually gave armies to some of my friends who were interested in playing so they could learn the game and play. IN those cases the communities grew. As I got a bit more serious I joined a large gaming club in a neighboring state, which was run by competitive players, including many who had you tube channels promoting the game, during the time I was there the club grew week to week. I fell out of the game in 7th and took up Malifaux, and the people who introduced me to the game were competitive players, who donated terrain to our local shop that had just opened they worked to bring in new players and grow the group, unfortunately life ended up getting in the way (one main guy got busy with family stuff, and myself and one other guy had our first children). SO the group ended up falling apart because the people running it were no longer around. I came back to 40k at the beginning of 8th, and donated terrain to a couple of stores that were looking to grow their communities. One started having tournaments and started with a small crowd of 6 guys or so, but lately has had more like 20, and lots of regular games happening week in and week out.

That is not including seeing competitive players grow events, conventions etc.

IME I have never seen casual players growing the game, the investment in it isn't their for them to do so most of the time. They might talk to a customer in the store about it if asked, and they are usually nice guys but most are happy in their group of friends.

I'm also sure other people have different experiences, but stating that competitive players are somehow a net negative for the gaming community is flat out wrong and you have no stats to back up that assertion, when the fact exists that tournaments are growing in number and attendance across the board. Major gaming conventions are bigger than ever (typically run by competitive players, and inclusive of casual elements), many competitive players are responsible for popular you tube channels about the game, or podcasts etc.

DO people burn out or leave games sure, but that happens to both casual and competitive players. Maybe a new game seems more interesting, maybe life gets in the way (with 2 toddlers I don't have gaming time regularly anymore)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yes, i'd like a competently written ruleset that does not need special missions to be used for competitive play compared to standard / casual play.

There should also not a rule of three exist (because it's an obvious bandaid)

Generally speaking the idea of "my deck vs your deck" with no scenario doesn't work in minis games. They need a scenario to force engagement because of threat ranges and the like. Those missions don't need to be "special" (I won't say I'm a fan of ITC secondaries) but something needs to exist.

Rule of 3 is pretty much just a standard rule for any game system at this point. I honestly can't think of a system that gets by without something like it. It's less a band aid and more of a safety net. Even if it wasn't "needed", I greatly appreciate a game system that tells me "I promise you will never have to buy 2000 points of a single model to be competitive". I can't say I can really think of a situation where I'd really want taking more than 3 of anything to be anything other than a mistake.

Ehh.
In a wargame i shouldn't be able from the get go to just field one unit type and dominate in the first place.
That's the issue with it for me atleast.

while it may be possible to make it so that all of one thing cannot dominate, having no restriction on number of models leads to one of 2 things.
1.) Models that are very bland.
of
2.) models that are very points expensive.

If you have super type units that are meant to be powerful on the table, they would need to be very cost prohibitive of taking multiples, which often makes them not all that viable. OR They don't exist and everything is pretty similar.

IT is very difficult to get all options to be equal. IF they are not equal, then taking more of the best choice is the best option.

What about comp scores? At the very least it will decimate the perceived overpowered stuff, though I've never seen it work too well.

 Irkjoe wrote:
What about comp scores? At the very least it will decimate the perceived overpowered stuff, though I've never seen it work too well.

Them's fighting words around here. I'd put on a flame-resistant jacket if I were you... I can hear the angry bird noises already on the horizon. He is going to peck your eyes out.

 Irkjoe wrote:
What about comp scores? At the very least it will decimate the perceived overpowered stuff, though I've never seen it work too well.

The problem with comp scores is that they're super subjective, and don't hurt every army equally. For example, if you make a rule that you can only take one of every model, but can take unlimited dedicated transports, Eldar with Wave Serpents become MUCH more powerful. You're just creating a different set of rules to be min-maxed. So I'd rather not use them at all honestly.

 Horst wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
What about comp scores? At the very least it will decimate the perceived overpowered stuff, though I've never seen it work too well.

The problem with comp scores is that they're super subjective, and don't hurt every army equally. For example, if you make a rule that you can only take one of every model, but can take unlimited dedicated transports, Eldar with Wave Serpents become MUCH more powerful. You're just creating a different set of rules to be min-maxed. So I'd rather not use them at all honestly.

I like comp.

In older editions, so many points had to be spent on this or that type of unit.

This was to reinforce faction flavor, too - well, should - lots of troops, and so on.

Use the math hammer to calculate handicaps or taxes or both for different units whether Op or Up or... math hammer style.

Reform the rules set around common sense realism, and otherwise take the gamey 'gotchas' out of the equation.

Let the best hobbyist win.

Comp scores are like trying to have a room of people all paint a single model at the same time.

I mean, I don't dislike comp, my 5th edition marines army was built with it in mind back when I used to play. But all it really does is introduce a new balancing mechanic into the game, and make some armies much stronger than others. It's also extremely unfriendly towards newer casual players, if you build an army you think has cool models but it doesn't make lore sense, you get crucified.

The problem with comp is that it is both subjective, and used as a tool to dock player points as a tournament strategy.

 Irkjoe wrote:
What about comp scores? At the very least it will decimate the perceived overpowered stuff, though I've never seen it work too well.

It doesn't work well. Its just the extremely biased opinions of whoever is writing the comp rules. If they hate army X and love army Y, well...

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Competive 40k is self contradicting term anyway so what's the matter anyway.

Highly inclined to disagree with you. High level play is completely different to the average beet and pretzels game of 40k.

Dwight Schrute has entered the chat.

Serious: I am a competitive person. Not win at all costs, but I like to know where I stand amongst my peers when anything of skill is involved.That said I much prefer the tournament scene of Age of Sigmar which revolves more around camaraderie and good times had by all with people using optimized armies and know their rules, vs 40k where it seems to be about stepping on someone's back as a means to claw there way to the top of nerd mountain.

Breng77 wrote:
while it may be possible to make it so that all of one thing cannot dominate, having no restriction on number of models leads to one of 2 things.
1.) Models that are very bland.
of
2.) models that are very points expensive.

If you have super type units that are meant to be powerful on the table, they would need to be very cost prohibitive of taking multiples, which often makes them not all that viable. OR They don't exist and everything is pretty similar.

IT is very difficult to get all options to be equal. IF they are not equal, then taking more of the best choice is the best option.

Or you write a ruleset that gives distinct roles to different types of units, so that any single super-unit can't be good at everything. Take an army of all Tigers into bocage country in a competently-written WW2 wargame and you're going to have a bad time. Build an army of all artillery in a Napoleonic and cavalry will ruin your day. All-knights runs into trouble when the enemy has pikemen. Battleships are great until the enemy has torpedo boats. And so on and so on.

40K suffers greatly from its design space coming down to firepower/durability/mobility and little else. There's no real sense of combined arms or niches for unit types, which in other games (and real life!) forces a more balanced composition to shore up weaknesses and provide mutual support.