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.

Infinity is designed with the tournament in mind so the 3 rounds scenario is in the system.

The "Rambo" is not a flawed design, its a valid option that gives new players a fighting strategy, easily countered by experienced players, but still a low skill powerful move, sorry cannot think its proper terminology, it is a "new design" though and some people who are too traditionally minded cannot warp their minds around it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In an Action Point fatigue model, the easiest way to balance it is to simply charge more for each subsequent action...

That is an interesting idea. I actually like that although the cost would probably need to be adjusted a bit but that is more dependent on the impact that certain models moving multiple times have on the battlefield. It seems to remind me of video game AP for multiple actions although I can't remember what game, but I seem to recall something similar back during when I played games on my Amiga.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
it is a "new design" though and some people who are too traditionally minded cannot warp their minds around it.

I can definitely agree with that. I can understand that it's base design is about tournaments, we don't have a lot of tournaments here. If the game focuses entirely on tournaments, it tends to make it limited in drumming up a good play group that stays focused with it. Granted that sentiment probably changes from location to location.

An alternative AP/Action cost model might be like this:
1 Action = 1 AP
2 Actions = 3 AP (1+2)
3 Actions = 6 AP (1+2+3, max)

This splits the difference between the two models.

The AP granularity is kind of low compared to points, so you have to take big steps. Note that cheerleaders that just give APs tend to be cheap models, compared to Rambos that take Actions, so one should charge more.

That is a really false assumption, many games have been won because the "cheerleader" who is also a specialist has the last round spend 6 or 8 orders.

I feel your assumptions about how the game work are entirely based on annihilation missions with infinite turns.

I dread to see such harsh AP/ action model implemented, the biggest resource in Infinity are the orders and veteran players are those who learn how to spend this valuable resource more efficiently.

That's OK, I dread that I'd ever have to play Infinity under it's current rules.

While anything is possible, the Infinity cheerleader mechanic is counter-intuitive and plainly unrealistic. To me, that's a problem, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

Have you ever played it? ever?

In any case feel free to think experience and insight of a game system is sugarcoating.

I saw it demoed a long time ago, and was not impressed.