Epic size - SSD, Home One. FFG has proven that they can make miniatures of this size playable. Remember that these "super" class ships were very rare (and Home One could be considered a "super", its broadsides could match a SSD from the front (ref: X-wing: Solo Command I believe), and could easily take on a ISD or two)
Err, the Home One is 1,3 kilometers. That's not even a tenth of an SSD.
Several days ago, I created a post which discussed how I felt about the minis, their look, etc. It can be found here:
One of the predominant themes within this thread is the acceptability to most of a "sliding scale" or relative sizes of capital ships - as long as it isn't completely random.
I find this very interesting. And I have a question, one which was indicated in the title of the post.
Why is this sliding scale ok for Armada, but not X-Wing. To be clear, I am not being critical of anyone. I simply am curious, and would like to understand people's thought processes.
I have been playing X-Wing since its inception. I have been an active member and poster of the forum. And one thing I can state with complete accuracy, is that there has been a never ending stream of comments on X-Wing that the game should NEVER EVER EVER have a Star Destroyer (or similar capital ship) released for it because it would be way out of scale.
This has been the primary reason given in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts as to why major capital ships will never be made for X-Wing.
So, given the unbelievable amount of rhetoric and passion and flaming that has gone on in X-Wing about this subject, why is it now acceptable to have a sliding scale in Armada? Note that many of the posters in X-Wing who refused to accept the possibility for X-Wing, are the same posters who say it is fine for Armada.
Again, just trying to spark some debate, and grasp the thought processes being utilized ...
I think it has to do with the size of the models:
A imperal stardestroyer on x-wing scale and movie accurate (ie the Tantive IV fits INSIDE it) would be the size of a surf board.
But with Aramda you could make the star destroyers just the right size (not to big so they don't take up to much shelf space) so that the other models look in scale with it. (but are so tiny that they becoem hard to manuver.)
Just my two cents here, but a sliding scale is almost necessary in games like X-Wing and Armada. Large capital ships are simply to big to build to scale compared to snub fighters and light freighters. Build them to scale in Armada and you'd have a SD 3 feet long and Tie's that are less than 1/2 inch and in X-Wing it would be redonkulous. That much disparity in size and you would loose a lot of the quality the smaller minis have had so far. Allow for a sliding scale and you can have your just right size fighters and falcons in X-Wing as well as your impressively large ships like the Tantive while maintaining detail and quality. Adjust the rules that apply to capital ships and they fit snugly into the rest of the game (x-wing). So why not have a SD or a Calmari Crusier that is only slightly larger than the Tantive? It'll still have a great amount of detail and once you apply to correct rules to how it's used in the game then job done. Plus, we all get to go buy the really badass ISDs or Mon-Cal Cruisers to put on our book cases.
.Build them to scale in Armada and you'd have a SD 3 feet long and Tie's that are less than 1/2 inch and in X-Wing it would be redonkulous.
Redonkulous.
I like that word.
Have you read "Just can't get enough" (a book about 80's stuff) ?
Edited by Robin GravesPeople keep saying that a sliding scale is "necessary" but that's just not true. I know of a guy who made very detailed models of both Alliance and Imperial fleets in 1/10,000 scale. Ships were included from the corvette (a little longer than a staple) all the way up to an ISD (a little over 6 inches long). While there may have been some fudging on the smaller end ships, everything looked correct and would have been usable for fleet actions had a good rules set been out at the time.
One of the things I don't think Armada is doing correctly (and is causing the scaling problem) is that they are looking at ships the size of a corvette as a single unit. Ships that small in a fleet engagement do not fight independently. They fight in small squadrons of two or three. An example would be destroyers in WWI and WWII. The scale problem would easily be solved by making corvette sized ships the size of the fighter squadrons, with two or three models on the stand that fight in these small squadrons. That would have the benefit of making "corvette swarms" a viable and realistic proposition. Again, I'm looking at WWII and the later battles of Leyte Gulf as an example of this where US destroyer escorts took out Japanese battleships in exactly that way. Since the fighters are really representing squadrons as well, they could remain as they are and still be visibly acceptable on the board. You'd effectively get a "war room" type of display that could be vary appealing.
In this way, you can have a unified scale of, say 1/10,000, for example, that requires players to take the relative size of their ships into consideration as they fight just like a real admiral would. It also gives the cinematic table that looks like what we saw on the big screen. You might need a sliding scale for ships such as SSDs, but SSDs bring in all kinds of other problems no one seems to be talking about. The biggest being potential points cost of an SSD and how a Rebel player would hope to match it.
Part of what attracts me to the idea of a Star Wars fleet game is the cinema of giant ISDs fighting small swarms of smaller, lighter, faster Rebel ships, with VSDs and medium sized ships in the mix as well. By having a "sliding scale" or ships that "just look bigger" you loose part of the reason we all want the game so much. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing right or not at all. ISDs "slightly bigger" than VSDs puts us in the same ridiculous looking game that WotC or who-ever-it-was put out. Part of why that game died was ugly models that were on a silly sliding scale. I hope Armada does not repeat that mistake.
As an addendum to what I said above, I have a model scaling app in my iPad.
A 150 meter corvette in 1/10,000 scale would be 15 mm long. Certainly big enough for good detail, especially if on a stand of two representing a small squadron.
An ISD at 1,600 meters would be about 6.30 inches.
One consistent scale is extremely possible.
And in case anyone is wondering, a 19,000 meter SSD (Executor) would work out to 6.23 feet long, in scale.
Edited by ThalomenIf something is worth doing, it's worth doing right or not at all. ISDs "slightly bigger" than VSDs puts us in the same ridiculous looking game that WotC or who-ever-it-was put out.
I agree for the most part. I'd rather see the stick to a single scale for Armada. If that means the Vette is actually a pair, or something, so be it.
But I'm willing to accept what they've done so far, even though the vette is clearly too big. The Neb and VSD look ok net to each other I think.
Assuming a 5" VSD, a ISD should be between 8 and 9 inches. VSD is 900m a ISD is 1600 so not quite twice as big. But if the ISD isn't that big, but is closer to 6-7, I'm not so sure I'll keep buying stuff for this game.
People keep saying that a sliding scale is "necessary" but that's just not true. I know of a guy who made very detailed models of both Alliance and Imperial fleets in 1/10,000 scale. Ships were included from the corvette (a little longer than a staple) all the way up to an ISD (a little over 6 inches long). While there may have been some fudging on the smaller end ships, everything looked correct and would have been usable for fleet actions had a good rules set been out at the time.
I would like to ask though, how long did your friend work on each individual model? Sculptors are capable of incredible detail on insanely tiny models, no argument there.
It's the mass production process that isn't.
Your fleet idea though is one that I'd been toying with as well. It is how a lot of other games handle smaller sized ships (heck, it's how Armada handles fighters) and it is a shame that FFG didn't go for that, because looks aside it'd make the discrepancy of a CR90 having roughly half of a Victory's HP and firepower just a bit easier to swallow.
Edited by kerokoNot sure how long it took him. But of course, he did not have computer modeling and access to rapid prototyping the FFG probably does.
Once they have the computer model they can print it at any size. It will take some rules adjustment, but I think its something very feasible for them to still do.
Last I checked, 3D printers still needed a bit of work to be commercially viable. As they were either rather expensive, or lacking in detail. Has there been a change in the technology I missed?
Apparently so. Spartan Games uses that kind of technology to make spectacular models in a very short turn around time. As I understand it, they use the rapid printers to make prototype models which the molds are made from.
I don't know why that wouldn't work here.
People keep saying that a sliding scale is "necessary" but that's just not true. I know of a guy who made very detailed models of both Alliance and Imperial fleets in 1/10,000 scale. Ships were included from the corvette (a little longer than a staple) all the way up to an ISD (a little over 6 inches long). While there may have been some fudging on the smaller end ships, everything looked correct and would have been usable for fleet actions had a good rules set been out at the time.
I would like to ask though, how long did your friend work on each individual model? Sculptors are capable of incredible detail on insanely tiny models, no argument there.
It's the mass production process that isn't.
That's not true. Mass production can produce AMAZING detail. Microchips, for example, are not individually hand-crafted. Now, I'll grant you that a ship the size of a staple is probably not going to have any painting, just as we see with the fighters.
The problem with the constant scale is not the CR-90s 'Alderaanian cruisers', but the starfighters. The solution here - if we're going to insist on constant scale, is not on the small end (though I think they could make the small end a little smaller), but on the big end. They could make the VSD and eventual ISD bigger, and get away with a higher cost. I think that if people hear that the game is in constant scale, they'll get pretty tickled by it, and it would be a draw for more fans. I do think that scale is a BIG factor in Star Wars.
That said, I'm certainly willing to accept a linear sliding scale. In fact, I think it might be wise if they do it that way. The gentler the slope of that sliding scale, the happier I'll be, and I think that there should be allowances for fighter squadrons, as being symbolic rather than representative.
What will disgust me is if the scale is arbitrary. That, such as what Funk Fu master is hinting at above by making Home One the a larger scale than the ISD just because it needs to be on par with the SSD, even though (as Keroko points out at 1.3km), it is 300m smaller than the ISD. Again, see my comment about disrespect on pg. 2. (Borithan - I didn't say a sliding scale would be a sign of disrespect. I said that arbitrary scaling would be disrespectful.) All, I ask is that FFG do the same amount of homework for Armada as they did for X-Wing - especially, if it's going to be a higher-priced product.
Hell, I might even accept a progressive curvilinear sliding scale, provided we're informed that that's what it is, and so it's clear that the scale is not arbitrary because FFG didn't want to do the math and measurement.
Ahhh, those kinds of prototypes. Yes, that makes sense. Hmm, yes, that would be an option for model quality. But we're still stuck on the painting process (which also gets harder and more expensive the smaller you get).
Edited by kerokois hinting at above by making Home One the a larger scale than the ISD just because it needs to be on par with the SSD, even though (as Keroko points out at 1.3km), it is 300m smaller than the ISD.
I agree completely.
If a VSD is as I expect around 5 inches, then a correctly sized ISD is 8.5 inches. (127mm vs 215.9mm - 900m VSD vs 1600m ISD) A 8.5" model would cost around $50, based on the cost of the GR-75 for X-Wing. That seems to be a fairly reasonable cost for what would be a really cool model. That would also put the MonCals at like 7-8" depending on what model they make.
Again all of that completely feasible sizes.
But Home One, was never a match for the SSD, it wasn't intended to be, it was just the flag ship of the RA fleet.
I don't follow your point about the painting. If they were all hand painted, you might have a paint. But if anything, it would be easier. The small corvette would only be one main color, a highlight and a few details. Or, the could leave them unpainted as they are currently looking like the fighters will be. That way players can paint them in squadron colors as they please.
Well, the smaller the miniature, the more a struggle it is to get the paint right. Granted, I don't know how FFG does their painting, but the fact that they've left the fighters unpainted shows to me that there is a limit to their size/painting quality ratio.
Leaving even more ships unpainted might not be the best of moves. Pre-painted miniatures is one of the reasons X-wing does so well, and we're already seeing raised eyebrows at the unpainted fighters in Armada.
Edited by kerokoSome people complain no matter what, or always find the down side. Sometimes you just have to go with the best solution you have, perfect or not.
I really do think the small ship would work, painted or not.
Seeing how many gamers are also modelers/painters, I'm a little surprised unpainted small scale models are a problem, especially if it brings the cost down by a couple bucks, if it does.
Sometimes you just have to go with the best solution you have, perfect or not.
Which may very well be exactly what FFG ended up doing.
I'm a little surprised unpainted small scale models are a problem, especially if it brings the cost down by a couple bucks, if it does.
I'd guess maybe half of us, aren't mini gamers in the normal sense. A lot of people who post here have never pained a model, and one of the things that attracted them to X-Wing in the first place was painted models.
is hinting at above by making Home One the a larger scale than the ISD just because it needs to be on par with the SSD, even though (as Keroko points out at 1.3km), it is 300m smaller than the ISD.
I agree completely.
If a VSD is as I expect around 5 inches, then a correctly sized ISD is 8.5 inches. (127mm vs 215.9mm - 900m VSD vs 1600m ISD) A 8.5" model would cost around $50, based on the cost of the GR-75 for X-Wing. That seems to be a fairly reasonable cost for what would be a really cool model. That would also put the MonCals at like 7-8" depending on what model they make.
Again all of that completely feasible sizes.
But Home One, was never a match for the SSD, it wasn't intended to be, it was just the flag ship of the RA fleet.
let's see, these are the sizes of the ships in question:
CR90: 150 meters.
Nebulon-B 300 meters.
Victory SD: 900 meters.
If the VSD is roughly 12.5 cm, then the scale for the VSD is about 1:7200.
I'm guessing the Nebulon-B to be roughly half the size of the victory. Maybe slightly less. Say... 6 cm. That'd make it about 1:5000.
The Corvette is about... hmmm 4/5th the length of the Nebulon-B? So roughly 4,8 cm? That'd put the Corvette at about 1:3125.
Assuming I didn't fail basic math in a horribly embarrassing way, it's not exactly consistent in the scale increase, but around the +2000 for the scale of each ship.
Some people complain no matter what, or always find the down side. Sometimes you just have to go with the best solution you have, perfect or not.
I really do think the small ship would work, painted or not.
Seeing how many gamers are also modelers/painters, I'm a little surprised unpainted small scale models are a problem, especially if it brings the cost down by a couple bucks, if it does.
Some people just like to buy a box, crack it open and start playing. The many miniature wargames out there right now might give the illusion that miniature wargamers also tend to be modellers and painters, but that's just because the hobby pretty much forces the assembling and painting part down your throat if you want to play. Well over half of my current X-wing group either paid someone to paint their armies or rarely touched a miniature wargame before X-wing because of it.
Edited by kerokoAssuming I didn't fail basic math in a horribly embarrassing way, it's not exactly consistent in the scale increase, but around the +2000 for the scale of each ship.
My hope is that the VSD is the 'standard' for the game, with smaller ships being scalled up in size for the sake of making a better looking model, but things bigger then VSD's being kept on a more consistent scale.
I say that mostly, because a ISD that's only 50% larger then a VSD means I may very well never get much more then the starter set.
Some people just like to buy a box, crack it open and start playing. The many miniature wargames out there right now might give the illusion that miniature wargamers also tend to be modellers and painters, but that's just because the hobby pretty much forces the assembling and painting part down your throat if you want to play. Well over half of my current X-wing group either paid someone to paint their armies or rarely touched a miniature wargame before X-wing because of it.
Now that's an interesting point. In my location, most people are hobbyists and gamers, and that's been true of all the gaming communities I've been part of. Two in Florida (one of which was part of a larger state wide club), one in California all in the United States. Painting, for the most part, seemed to be part of the attraction to many gamers. I'll grant I never thought that was universal and you validate that veiw. There certainly is something to be said for just "cracking open the box" and playing. I'm just suggesting a potentail solution to the scale problem so many folks have a problem with.
I'm somewhat fascinated that people are more willing to accept inconsistant scale. I always would have thought that in a game like this scale would be paramount, if only because for many of us it was that opening scene in A New Hope.The Tantive zipping across the screen followed by that star destroyer that seemed to never to coming.That's where I was hooked. That size difference is part of the fascination for me. Perhaps its not the same for everyone. But by losing that scale you also loose part of the essence of Star Wars: a small out numbered "insignificant rebellion" fighting an overwhelmingly hugh Galactic Empire.
I dont know. Sliding scales loose that for me.
Edited by ThalomenHmm, I suppose the acceptance for me comes from how I always believed a game like this to be a pipe dream. I first played Battlefleet Gothic about twelve or so years ago (sadly never got into it before it got canned) and I remember thinking how awesome it would be if there was a Star Wars version.
12 years of waiting led to many, many lowered expectations. FFG blew most of those out of the water with what they've presented so far, leaving... pretty much only scale as the iggly niggly voice of doubt.
But then I look at Attack Wing and how worse it could have been (CR90's the size of an ISD), and that voice lowers by another decibel.
So yeah, many potential good sides to compensate for the scale issue, alongside an "it could have been worse" example, and things end with me being pretty lenient on the scale issue. It'd be great is the core set is the only set where the scale issue is so noticeable, but it's not enough to stop me from buying the game I've been waiting on for twelve years.
Edited by kerokoI'm somewhat fascinated that people are more willing to accept inconsistant scale.
Well it comes down to a few things.
For some scale is more important then others. On the X-Wing boards there were people would of been completely fine with a 16-18" ISD on the table next to the 13" CR-90. Because to them scale just doesn't matter.
Then there's people like me and maybe keroko (don't want to speak for him, but he seems to agree.) that while scale is important, we're willing to allow some fudge factor as long as it's not too big. I do think the CR-90 is way to big, but if a ISD is 4-5 times bigger then it, I think it will look acceptable if not ideal.
Lastly there is the point that the ship has already seemed to sale on this. As much as I'd prefer a true absolute scale, like they did in X-Wing with everything other then Epic ships... It doesn't look like we're going to get that. So unless what we see now are prototypes and they haven't already started production, which I'm pretty sure they have... This is what we're getting.
So the question is, do I hold my nose regarding scale and enjoy everything the game has to offer, or is scale a a breaking point and enough to keep you out of the game completely.
Vanor, I agree with you, and Keroko over all.
Frankly, it's not perfect, its not going to be perfect and will never satisfy anyone. But, and its a big but. Bertha's but, as my old history teacher used to say. Its going to be the best game out there by a long shot. It's going to have nearly everything a lot of us have wanted since we realized there was a thing called war gaming and thought of commanding an ISD.
Assuming the game is as good as I'm told X-wing is, I'm going to get it when it comes out. And if I have to go and build or buy after market scale ships and home brew some corvette rules, I'm ok with it.
In the mean time, I'm still going to argue for one scale and hope that influences the designers. That way, when I bitterly complain as I build my own 15mm long corvettes I'll have actual justification. :-)
Edited by ThalomenThat's one upside of the gargantuan bases these ships have. It doesn't matter how you customize your models, because unlike minature wargames like warhammer where line of sight severely limits customization, all that matters here is the base.