So Paradiso is garbage?

[Hero of Man]

Then just stop after that resolution. Seriously. At one point he fights a guy who think's he's Christ reborn. Hell, he doesnt look a thing like Jesus... but he talks like a gentleman, like you imagined when you were young.

[Arachas]

Then just stop after that resolution. Seriously. At one point he fights a guy who think's he's Christ reborn. Hell, he doesnt look a thing like Jesus... but he talks like a gentleman, like you imagined when you were young.

LOL!

And thanks for the tip. I'll just go for the new live action movie afterwards.

[Magno]

Paradiso is not your standard miniature war game campaign. It's story campaign. It's fun and challenging and makes standard firefight missions refreshing again.

[Lampyridae]

Kenshin got really deranged after the Shishio arc... the last episodes I watched before giving up on it entirely (no doubt shortly before its demise) involved some Feng Shui ninjas. Yes, you read me right.

It was just too silly for words.

Samurai X rocked, though. And Paradiso... we are slowly getting into it. We'll have to apply house rules here and there (I think a 10XP cap is necessary for missions) but I'm looking forward to it.

[Hero of Man]

You missed him fighting German knights in a forgotten temple. Also, hiten mitsurugi style has no counter against men on horse back. Seriously, all you need is a horse to beat Kenshin.

[tinfish]

I was going to get the campaign, but I think I'll revise that.

Requiring tailored lists, when I refuse to tailor any game for any reason is not a good idea Tailoring is for tournies, and I ain't that competative.

All missions except mission pack's, should be doable by any force, maybe with a dissadvantage or two, but doable nonetheless.

I'd rather have a 300 point reserve, pick 100 points of forces, randomly select a mission, go play.
Deal with captured/dead/injured models afterwards, "dead" guys roll on a table to find out if they are actually dead, or just going to miss some battles through injury. You play and earn money, spend it on expanding your forces, on campaign specific one use speciall rules etc.

Prison break out missions to get your captured guys back from another faction, and a map of hexes, squares that expands as you win games.

But nothing with tailoring. Just no.. I want my force of utter garbage to be able to do the mission, in a balanced game tailoring is not needed. (I suspect Infinity is balanced, so why force tailoring in missions..) makes sense for ones offs, but not a campaign system.

Pick a restricted reserve which will be your army, spend money to increase it, spend money to unlock new units, pick a 100 point force for your game, spend money to increase that to 120 points.
Reward players for doing well on the table, not for doing well with a calculator and a bit of paper, or a higher disposable income

[chromedog]

Paradiso is one of them ... "narrative" campaign things. Going along with this, lists kinda have to fit the narrative or your army is providing the audio description to another movie.

It had good ideas, and some good bits in it. Layout could have been better and the missions perhaps a little less confuzzling. I gave it a 5 out of 10 when locals wanted my opinion. It's not something I'd rush out and buy if I had to do it over - I'd have waited and not had to worry about dealing with another unwanted miniature as well (I gave marlene and the stupid bunnybot away to someone who wanted the miku avatar she represents).

[ElectricPaladin]

I've only played a couple of Paradiso missions, but I've read through it extensively, and my impressions are...

• To reiterate what's been said, it requires models that many players haven't bothered to pick up, like forward observers and baggage REMs. This may be hell for super-competitive ITSers, but it's fun for completists and those of us who like to buy what we want to paint, and can be solved simply with a little creative proxying.

• Because you taylor your list to the scenario, there is a bit of a suitcase benefit. However, allowing proxying is just good sportsmanship, unless your FLGS community is full of rich dudes. I would also like to assert that in my opinion, no Infinity faction (except ALEPH and the Tohaa, who are newer, and Ariadna, which is intentionally designed that way) is actually too far behind any others in terms of the availability of models important skills, so I don't think that this actually unbalances the game environment.

• The scenarios are generally fun and cinematic, and I like the focus on completing the mission rather than just killing everyone.

That said, I do see two major flaws in the Paradiso system:

• Infiltrate and Impersonate are universally nerfed. Rather than think of interesting scenario ways to prevent infiltrating hackers or engineers (does anyone have those?) from achieving objectives too quickly, many missions just apply an enormous penalty to any effort to infiltrate (PH -6 to deploy outside the deployment zone, PH -12 to start on the enemy half of the table) or ban Infiltrate outright. For some factions and playstyles, this can be very frustrating.

• Spec Ops just aren't worth it. So, you are telling me that I have this free model that I get to add to my force and that I can spend points earned by playing games to make him tougher and give him specialized gear? That sounds great! Oh, wait... he's also a character, so if he dies there's a good chance that all those points spent on him are lost forever. And you're also telling me that I can instead spend those points on army-wide benefits that can't be lost no matter what? And that none of the spec ops' gear is anything I can't get with something already in my list? Yeah - it's no contest. If he wasn't competing with the army-wide benefits, it would be worth it... but as it is, it's a failed system.

[ToadChild]

When we ran Paradiso we explicitly allowed super-liberal proxying rules. Especially when people start buying the army-level upgrades to increase the AVA of units, or including mercenaries that they can't use in "normal" or ITS games, etc.

[Pacific]

Paradiso certainly isn't what I was hoping for when I picked it up. And especially with my group it hasn't been possible to play it out to the extent that I believe would allow it to shine.

A campaign format that encouraged growth would be good and help to get my group more involved. I'd be happy to help and contribute my thoughts to such a project.

I think that the campaign rules from Paradiso are pretty good. The missions are a bit... unusual, IMO.

I definitely feel the same way about it. Some great ideas for campaign rules and a system that can translate well into your own player-made campaigns. The unit/force progression and skill trees are pretty cool, and the campaign sheets you can print off are very useful.

I suppose the campaign is rather 'specific' - it places quite tight controls in terms of what force you have to use, and most missions have a tactic that you need to use to win.

Certainly wouldn't call it 'garbage' - it's not that intuitively written, and will require a bit more effort than some on the players part, but I've had fun playing the missions and the setting is pretty evocative (if you go full out with jungle terrain and the correct buildings/accessories).

[Willowran]

I've heard that one of the problems with Paradiso is that the points you get from missions can be fairly skewed. IE Players that win early missions get advantages that... help them win later missions, giving them a LARGER advantage that helps them win missions... etc.

[cegorach]

Hi Everyone

This is Dave the English editor. I'm just posting here to clear up a few things as I was summoned by some mildly concerning posts.

First off, just to stop the denigration of my skills in their tracks, I am a professional editor.

And yes, I am aware of the linguistic issues in the texts as I am neither stupid, lazy or evil.

I'll address style, not typos, as anyone with any experience at all in publishing will be well aware the written typo level is extremely low given the number of people involved in the process and the size of the texts and timeframes involved.

For those paying attention and not trying to be dramatic or advance a personal agenda, it's pretty obvious there have been changes in style over the books.

This is because there has been a gradual push from my end to anglicise the text. This has been gradual as it's a delicate job - over time you are dealing with different translators, with vastly different levels of competence, and your client (CB) is not staffed by native English speakers but folks with a good grasp of English that is aligned with the same direction of that of the translators. For example, that's why some edits of mine were returned to their original form as it made more sense to CB based on THEIR grasp of English, assuming in good faith I had simply made a mistake.

An effort was made to keep the flowery, expositive nature of the Spanish language in the texts. Now many people have a problem with that. Well, as a speaker of Australian English, I could tell you that your American English disgusts me with its perversion of the language or that your Queen's English is symptomatic of the rot of a dead empire

There are not many situations of actually incomprehensillibility as opposed to dissonance with an individual's own perception of the language. And that is to be expected but I've successfully argued that CB move more towards general Anglicisation and with 3rd Edition you will see more Americanisation as a) It's a big English speaking market and b) Americans whinge more

The quality of the translation has improved radically and with it the capacity to communicate back and forth. Please understand that when editing certain kinds of information translated from another language you are utterly reliant on the interpretation of the translator. You can't actually SEE the issues in many cases as you have no understanding of the original meaning since you cannot read the native text. In addition, even if you *think* there is an issue, when you query CB THEIR interpretation will be different so they won't see the issue you are probing for.

The translator is king in these situations and CB have done well all things considered. They have committed to an increase in quality and that has been observable as they have grown their business.

3rd edition now sees input from a number of US proofreaders and subeditors who are actively engaged in querying rules issues - something I would not do as I did NOT want to be the single person responsible for a misinterpretation that breaks the game. These guys are AWESOME and I happily share the work with them as it leads to a much greater level of transparency and accuracy.

Most importantly, it acclimatises CB to being open to accepting the different ways of speaking and thinking beyond their own purview.

To put it another way, some editors like to swing their dicks as it were, and dictate to clients the holy and perfect style that they are sole guardians of. Those editors don't tend to last long, and when dealing with foreign clients tend to generate a hostility towards accepting the nuances of a given language.

It's not simply a case of sitting down like you are in high school and correcting a sentence or two. A job of this nature is a massive undertaking and has an awful lot to do with client liaison.

Yes, it's not perfect and it's something myself, CB and other people are working hard on to improve, often for no remuneration.

But I'd appreciate a little more politeness if that's at all possible, as many of the criticisms come from a lack of understanding the nature of the work. There's quite a few people working hard behind the scenes for your benefit, please be aware it's not an easy job.

[chromedog]

^ This is why we need an "exalt" button.

[Pacific]

Absolutely!

Great post David, thanks for taking the time to come over here and make it. It's really appreciated, hopefully it might make the comments and criticism more structured now that there is a human face to the work, rather than just a shadowy 'editor' for keyboard warriors to take a pop at.

[Mistake Not]

Paradiso had its issues, but I can barely imagine how much work goes into making an entire book.
People make mistakes, that's kind of a regularly repeating thing in this life. Just uncomfortable to accept I guess.
I'm just glad they've learned from what they've done so far, that's all one can really ask for right?

Thank you for sharing your perspective cegorach, and thank you for your work on the book itself.


Funnily enough the biggest conflict with Paradiso at the FLGS happened over a bit of the book that had no grammatical, stylistic, or other such issues. The sentence in Paradiso made sense.. my opponent's interpretation of which part of the sentence modified which didn't. Oh the joys of playing games in a non-native language.. the tiny Dutch market never gets translations.

[Harlekin]

While I respect all the work which went into Paradiso (and all the other books), I still have to say that I don't see any real improvements in the text (especially in the rules and scenarios).
And with CB's recent behavior (forum shut-down, price increase - both without any explanations) I start to feel less a fanboy-ish attitude towards CB and more like a customer.
And as such, I'm a critic and do use benchmarks - which in my case are hundreds of boardgames and hundreds of RPG books in my shelf. And in this regard, CB fails quite miserably.
Still, the pros outbalance the cons - but there is so much room for improvement and I really hope, CB achieves to close the quality gaps.

[Guarda de Assalto]

If there was one thing that pissed me off about Paradiso it was that they basically could have called the campaign "Operation: Go out and buy a fucking bagge remote." Aside from that I can't complain too much about the book that gave us the Tohaa, the Assault Subsection, SMGs and rocket launchers! =)

[Harlekin]

Now, the book is really cool when it comes to content.
I just don't see much of an improvement when it comes to wording and rules languagewise. That's all I want to say.
I'm no native speaker but I'm able to understand my old Avalon Hill games rules but Infinity gives me tons of headaches...

[bodok]

@cegorach: Thanks for this editors view!

Back to Topic:

Paradiso is for players who are willing to shape an army especially for the specific mission - and in my opinion only for this kind of players.

But it is also an good source for mission ideas and good rules for your campaign, with your missions and overall objective...

[Penemue]

Then just stop after that resolution. Seriously. At one point he fights a guy who think's he's Christ reborn. Hell, he doesnt look a thing like Jesus... but he talks like a gentleman, like you imagined when you were young.

LOL!

And thanks for the tip. I'll just go for the new live action movie afterwards.

Ahhhhhhitssowelldone....

Well, they changed the Jin-e arc a bit to make it fit, but it's a great screen translation of the characters, and even of Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu. Neat to see how Kenshin would fight, if we could see more than blurry flashes.

[ElectricPaladin]

I've heard that one of the problems with Paradiso is that the points you get from missions can be fairly skewed. IE Players that win early missions get advantages that... help them win later missions, giving them a LARGER advantage that helps them win missions... etc.

This doesn't actually cause any problems because as the campaign progresses, the winners play the winners and the losers play the losers. Additionally, the loser's missions offer more points than the winner's missions, so by playing those missions with other players who are at their level, the losers gradually accumulate the points they need to take on the winners again.

[Mistake Not]

One thing that went wrong with our campaign was the final scoring.

Whoever has most points at the end of the sequence of games wins the entire thing.
Alright, that's fine, except I'm at 42 points after 402, though I did lose that game 3-2.
Next highest, who did qualify for 403, has 36 points right now. 403 gives 5 points to its winner. See what happens?

I've won the campaign despite not qualifying for the last game.. nothing anyone can do? Doesn't seem right.
Unfortunately the 36-point player has had some unrelated life issues to deal with, but when he gets back into the game I'll challenge him to 403. If he wins I'll declare him the overall winner, I have sole authority over the local campaign anyway.. I really don't want to win this way.

We have been discussing another run through the campaign, more tightly controlled and played, with full written clarifications and houserules in place for the entire thing before we even begin. We're not going at it "let's just see what happens" ever again, that much is sure.

[Todd]

Cegorach, I understand why you'd be defensive about some of the comments made, and thanks for explaining the situation.

However, I think you're seeing such negativity towards Paradiso, for three main reasons. One, it took so freaking long to come out, and the game needed it so badly. Being new to Infinity when I heard it was coming, I wax pretty hyped, only to be disappointed when it finally came. That brings me to the second reason, issues with nearly every element of the book. It's not just editing, but balance and design that were problems as well. In some cases it's hard to tell which is which (as you pointed out, there's no way for you to understand the intent when something has simply been omitted). And finally, my biggest beef, the total lack of support. As far as I know, CB didn't answer a single question in regards to the Paradiso Campaign. Go to the official site and look at the sub-forum, and it's basically a graveyard of unanswered questions. It's a shame that all of the player suggestions/input over there are going to be lost pretty soon.

That said, I think it was an important stepping stone towards the current ITS, and even the Dire Foes scenarios, which are all quite good. Obviously, ITS can use some improvement, but ask a Warmachine player around as far back as MKI how long it took for them to get a decent working set of missions. For anyone who hasn't played the DF missions yet, check them out (they're all online now, just google the mission names). To me, they feel like what I expected out of Paradiso, but a definite improvement over what we got. It's a shame they've received so little attention (not sure if it's due to the pay2play thing, perception that they're for specific faction match ups, or just general lack of interest).

If there was one thing that pissed me off about Paradiso it was that they basically could have called the campaign "Operation: Go out and buy a fucking bagge remote."

Yeah, CB's still not good at the part of mission design that incorporates certain units/models into the scenario in a way that feels purposeful/relevant. For example, the civvies in the DF scenarios do basically nothing, aside from granting a single objective point if you control them, or get them somewhere.

I've heard that one of the problems with Paradiso is that the points you get from missions can be fairly skewed. IE Players that win early missions get advantages that... help them win later missions, giving them a LARGER advantage that helps them win missions... etc.

This doesn't actually cause any problems because as the campaign progresses, the winners play the winners and the losers play the losers. Additionally, the loser's missions offer more points than the winner's missions, so by playing those missions with other players who are at their level, the losers gradually accumulate the points they need to take on the winners again.

That's not always the case. There are times when match ups are reset. Even so, the winner of the winners game is still going to end up even farther ahead of the winner of the losers game, meaning you will end up unevenly matched at some point. The point disparity in general can be pretty demoralizing, which is why some have suggested a mission cap. Even if you're playing an evenly matched opponent, you can't help but feel like "what's the point", when the players on the table next to you are already so far ahead.

I'd say a much bigger problem are the missions where the players that ignore each other score big, while those who fight it out get very few OPs.

[Todd]

One thing that went wrong with our campaign was the final scoring.

Whoever has most points at the end of the sequence of games wins the entire thing.

From what I recall, it doesn't actually stipulate win conditions for the campaign. We chose to make the winner of the final mission the overall winner, rather than decide by objective points. It helped with moral, in that everyone still had a chance to win (though, players with high op score would have a better chance with all of their additional tools/abilities).

[ToadChild]

Now, the book is really cool when it comes to content.
I just don't see much of an improvement when it comes to wording and rules languagewise. That's all I want to say.
I'm no native speaker but I'm able to understand my old Avalon Hill games rules but Infinity gives me tons of headaches...

I feel like the quality of rules text has improves IMMENSELY since the original book.

Take a rule out of the 2nd Edition core book - this is only one example, I could have chosen many more:

Camouflaging Again. When a figure has lost the Camouflaged status (It is represented by its figure and not a Camouflage Marker), he can recover his former status by spending 1 Order, provided that he is not in the LoF of any enemy miniatures. A figure in TO Camouflage in LoF of a miniature that intends to Camouflage itself again will have to reveal himself if he desires to prevent his enemy from re-entering Camouflaged status.

Think of all the headaches and arguments this has caused, with confusion about whether it means miniatures or markers, if the line about TO Camouflage really means Hidden Deployment, etc. I feel like you can't find many rules that cause that level of headscratching in Human Sphere, and especially not in Paradiso. And this example can't even be tied to translation issues; the original Spanish is just as imprecise.

[Mistake Not]

One thing that went wrong with our campaign was the final scoring.

Whoever has most points at the end of the sequence of games wins the entire thing.

From what I recall, it doesn't actually stipulate win conditions for the campaign. We chose to make the winner of the final mission the overall winner, rather than decide by objective points. It helped with moral, in that everyone still had a chance to win (though, players with high op score would have a better chance with all of their additional tools/abilities).

I fully agree with that solution, unfortunately the other players didn't. Most have given up on the campaign though, so I'm just keeping the torch alight until our CA player returns to the game..
Page 167 (second paragraph) says, and this is all the rules I/we could find about final scoring: "The amount of Objective Points will also be used to determine which one of all winners of a round of scenarios is considered to be the absolute winner of the round." Which got interepreted by our group as what I mentioned above. I tried to argue, but I guess they just wanted it to be over so they had me win? But.. well.. I've been over this.

[Harlekin]

@Toadchild: Yes, there is improvement. But we still are far from clear language which would be needed for a game as complex as Infinity. Don't you remember all those questions which arouse when Paradiso was published? The missions and the rules kept the community occupied for months (and still do in some cases).
I really hope, CB manage to do better with N3.

[ToadChild]

I think the Paradiso missions were kind of bad, but I think the game rules were a solid improvement. Paradiso was their first set of scenarios, and I do feel that ITS and Dire Foes have been an improvement over that. I'm going to be judging N3 based on its game rules, and I will judge ITS 2015 based on its scenario design.

[Harlekin]

Improvement? Yes. But that's the least thing I'd expect after 10 years of designing Infinity...

[Prophet_of_Doom]

I quite like Paradiso because you have to tailor your list. That feels much more like planning a Special Operation, which Infinity claims to be about.

Yes, the missions are quite complicated and sometimes hard to understand. They are definitely not suited for spontaneous pick-up games. I don't have a problem with that, Paradiso is a different way of playing Infinity.

I was actually quite happy to give my engineers and baggage remotes a new job. With the downside of hardly any mission allowing for infiltrators, etc, playing Paradiso was quite refreshing when it comes to list builds.

Tailoring lists is nothing evil, it is just another approach to wargaming.