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.

This is pretty much everything and more then I wanted when I brought up the idea on a ISD for X-Wing thread... Not that I think FFG saw my post and have stolen my idea. A fleet/Cap Ship miniature game is hardly a novel concept...

Armada looks like it may be even better then I had hopped, based on the system they have for issuing orders.

Assuming the game is as good as I'm told X-wing is

Having had played X-wing for about 1.5 years now. It's easily the best game I've played. It has that quality that the best games do, it takes very little time to understand the rules, but once you do, you find you've only scratched the surface of how deep the game really is.

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.

I'm somewhat fascinated that people are more willing to accept inconsistant scale.

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.

When it comes down to the decision, my choice will depend on multiple factors, not just scale. The thing is, with X-Wing, FFG has earned my trust. I trust they'll do a good job. That said, I do hope (but I don't trust) that they're paying attention to these forums and they might want to adjust the scaling a bit for the final product.

That said, I doubt we're actually going to see fundamental change from what we see in the imagery.

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.

Personally I do not accept that Home One, the first purpose built mon cal warship (the rest are converted passanger liners) is only 1.2km long. Both movie scaling and several other sources state it as about 3km long. It is not a modified MC80 but a bespoke and one of a kind design.

Show me your evidence and I'll be happy to amend my beliefs.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Home_One#cite_note-FF-2

The section on scaling brings up the disparity. I personally would take the scale from the movies over a games dveloper

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Home_One#cite_note-FF-2

The section on scaling brings up the disparity. I personally would take the scale from the movies over a games dveloper

I'm not sure where that link is pointing to exactly. If it's to the Official Star Wars Fact File, which is the source for the 1,300m citation, then you're proving the opposite point than what I think you're arguing for. It's the EaW source (a games developer) that is saying that it's 3.2km.

Please clarify.

Quoted from wookiepedia

Direct scaling of Home One in Return of the Jedi implies a minimum length of approximately 2.5km, and some cinematic evidence suggests a length of several kilometers. This contrasts with the 1,200-meter, 1,300-meter and 1,400-meter lengths given by Expanded Universe sources. X-Wing Alliance, which provides the source for the 1,400-meter Home One, also gives a length of 1,500 meters to Liberty-style cruisers and calls both types "MC80a"s. The most-quoted size of 1,200 meters apparently originated with West End Games, and is often presented as the generic size of MC80 Star Cruisers. The Return of the Jedi script and novelization contradict these later sources by describing Home One as the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, corresponding to its visual appearance in the film.

The game Star Wars: Empire at War scales Home One at approximately 3,200 meters. The game shows the Venator, Victory, Imperial, and Liberty classes in nearly perfect relative scale against each other. "Character" vessels are sometimes larger than their counterparts, which suggests that Home One may not be to scale, though the scaling is consistent with its size in Return of the Jedi.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:HomeOneScaling-EaW.jpg

The CR90 is small enough that it works even at 1/464 scale compared to the 1/270 fighters and its armament is something that makes it a threat but not an instant death machine. it cant get much bigger than that without being aesthetically wrong or over powered.
It is fine to say "give us an ISD in X Wing" but assuming the rebels can put 12 X Wings on the board (just a number) they would immediately be annihilated by the immense number of guns on any realistically represented ISD variation and the endless, for all intents and purposes, stream of TIEs it could put out.

That, more than any scale question, is my issue with the whole giant ship thing. And the reason ive never tried building anything bigger than a corvette for X Wing

Quoted from wookiepedia

Direct scaling of Home One in Return of the Jedi implies a minimum length of approximately 2.5km, and some cinematic evidence suggests a length of several kilometers.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:HomeOneScaling-EaW.jpg

Yes, I read that. So, you're hanging your hat on some fan counting pixels?

I disagree with this statement. Here, you are indicating it is the DEGREE of the scaling which essentially bothers you. And yet, I think you are going to find far worse degrees of scaling in Armada, then you would by adding one capital ship to X-Wing.

Now, obviously, Armada has not even been release yet, so trying to guesstimate as to what expansions will be made for it, etc. is rather pointless at this moment. But I think it is reasonably safe to assume (extrapolating from those minis we have already seen), that scaling is going to be a huge factor in Armada, and I for one don't think it is going to be consistent either.

In fact, I think an argument can already be made for those minis that we currently can see that scaling (and its multipliers/percentages/etc.), are not consistent. And I for one, am guessing that this will only get worse as expansions are released.

Somehow we've got yet another "I want a Star Destroyer in X-wing!" over in a different game entirely.

You point out that he's concerned about the degree of scaling as if it's a bad thing. Of course the degree matters. There are some arguments that the A-wing is about 2-3 times larger than it should be... but only the most hardcore of the hardcore care about it, because it looks right. People accept the relative scale of the Transport and CR90 in X-wing because, again, they look right. 1:270 vs. 1:460 requires serious knowledge of the source to tell apart. But bringing a Star Destroyer down to a reasonable - say 2 feet long - size is what, 1:2000 or so? That just looks wrong, and everyone who watched the first two minutes of Star Wars knows it.

So why is more extreme OK here and not for X-wing? Two reasons. First, it's unavoidable. The scale of the ships simply varies too widely. If a Corvette were the size of an X-wing (1.75"), then an Imperial Star Destroyer would be the size of X-wing's corvette. This game isn't going to get very far if half its models are $100 each.

But more importantly, this game needs that varied scale. Despite the constant whining about it, X-wing has no need for a Star Destroyer. It's a game about fighter-scale combat, and it does just fine at fighter scale.

So yes, people are going to be willing to accept the variable scale here, because it's impossible to avoid and it's critical to the game. Neither is true for X-wing.

Quoted from wookiepedia

Direct scaling of Home One in Return of the Jedi implies a minimum length of approximately 2.5km, and some cinematic evidence suggests a length of several kilometers.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:HomeOneScaling-EaW.jpg

Yes, I read that. So, you're hanging your hat on some fan counting pixels?

That, and the script and novelisation of ROTJ, plus numorous EU novels that I have read (including several x-wing series).

Home One took on multiple ISDs several times, even traded blows with a SSD. (broadsides into the bow, whilst on an axial role, stated that she had more guns brough to bare that what the SSDs frontal armament could). Ackbar at his finest once again.

Armada is obviously a fleet-based game. When I think of fleet-based games, I already know how far "zoomed out" the battlefield is going to be if it wants to accurately represent the size and range naval/space fleet actions can occur in. In old Avalon Hill games that I used play a lot, like Luftwaffe, Panzer Blitz, and Advanced Squadron Leader (I know those aren't naval, but bear with me) tanks and infantry platoons alike are portrayed as the same sized chits, stacked in hexes that they occupy.

Now, in video games that have large carriers and space stations with little fighters zipping around, like the Homeworld series, or even Endless Space, they can render things to scale as there is no limit to how far the player can zoom in or zoom out. And if the player zooms out so that the fighters are just dots alongside massive capital ships, then the tactical map displays circles, triangles, hexes, squares, or whatever the developers decided to distinguish ship classes by.

So when I'm preparing to play a game of this scale, a fleet based game, especially in a universe where some ships are large enough to be cities in an of themselves, yet fighters as small as cars are still active and viable in combat, I already know that everything is not going to be 100% to scale. Because if it were, half the ships couldn't exist on the table. And FFG decided that instead of having little tokens we place on the board with the text "Fighter Squadron", they decided to give us a more visually impressive sets of 3 fighters per base.

Why is it different for X-Wing? X-Wing is a "zoomed in" battlefield, down to the very smallest units used for space combat in that universe. Warhammer 40K wouldn't work very well if space marine models were as small as imperial guardsmen. Another game with a "zoomed in" battlefield. They are supposed to be more immersive in terms of visuals. Having an extremely out of scale ISD would be like playing a first-person shooter as a soldier and coming across a battleship the size of a tugboat - it feels wrong and the disparity is immediately recognized.

So why is more extreme OK here and not for X-wing? Two reasons. First, it's unavoidable. The scale of the ships simply varies too widely.

First, to be clear, I am not advocating for an ISD in X-Wing. Not here, nor in the X-Wing forums. The point of this OP was to gain an understanding of other's points of view as it applies to the scaling issue within X-Wing, and that which will definitely exist within Armada.

I am not against scaling per-se in Armada, I am, however, against inconsistent scaling, or random scaling, or whatever you want to call it.

The argument you offer above is specious at best. Even if you believe for the moment that "it's unavoidable", that doesn't make it right, nor does it justify making a game for the sake of making a game. As has been stated by many others in this thread, if there isn't some consistency in the scaling, there are many who won't purchase the game.

In my opinion, if you can't maintain some semblance of "order" within a game, then perhaps the game should not be made in the first place - that is, perhaps the very idea and basis of the game is not suited to a "miniatures" game.

So players are expected to miss out on a game portraying Star Wars fleet combat because you feel it's "wrong" to make a that has to utilize a varied scale. FFG isn't making the game for the sake of making the game, they are making it because there is clear player demand for it. It's like saying they shouldn't have created X-wing because they can't appropriately portray the three dimensional aspect of space combat.

If the scale isn't to your liking them by all means don't buy it, but to act like it's wrong. That's silly.

So players are expected to miss out on a game portraying Star Wars fleet combat because you feel it's "wrong" to make a that has to utilize a varied scale. FFG isn't making the game for the sake of making the game, they are making it because there is clear player demand for it. It's like saying they shouldn't have created X-wing because they can't appropriately portray the three dimensional aspect of space combat.

If the scale isn't to your liking them by all means don't buy it, but to act like it's wrong. That's silly.

The posts in this thread aren't about how the game is "wrong" but to debate what people like or dislike about the scale and why.

So players are expected to miss out on a game portraying Star Wars fleet combat because you feel it's "wrong" to make a that has to utilize a varied scale. FFG isn't making the game for the sake of making the game, they are making it because there is clear player demand for it. It's like saying they shouldn't have created X-wing because they can't appropriately portray the three dimensional aspect of space combat.

If the scale isn't to your liking them by all means don't buy it, but to act like it's wrong. That's silly.

No one, including me, have stated anything about right or wrong. It is a thread about scaling, and the way many of us feel would be the best approach.

The statement "FFG isn't making the game for the sake of making the game, they are making it because there is clear player demand for it" is an opinion, not a fact. It won't be a fact until the game is out, it is marketed, and people are actually buying it.

That is the point here in this thread ... it is POSSIBLE that many won't buy the game if the scaling issue isn't addressed in a reasonable way. We have been debating what would be a reasonable approach.

No one, including me, have stated anything about right or wrong.

Yeah I've never said the game is broken or that they're wrong to not have consistent scaling, just that I'd prefer consistent scaling. But even then I'm willing to let it slide to a degree... But only to a degree.

Based on what we've seen so far I think the VSD is going to be roughly 5 inches long. That means the CR-90 is too big, and the Neb B is a bit too big. But I can live with those, as long as ships larger then the VSD look correct on the table.

Even the CR-90 doesn't look that bad compared to the VSD. So as long as that's the worse it gets then I'll be happy.

Quoted from wookiepedia

Direct scaling of Home One in Return of the Jedi implies a minimum length of approximately 2.5km, and some cinematic evidence suggests a length of several kilometers. This contrasts with the 1,200-meter, 1,300-meter and 1,400-meter lengths given by Expanded Universe sources. X-Wing Alliance, which provides the source for the 1,400-meter Home One, also gives a length of 1,500 meters to Liberty-style cruisers and calls both types "MC80a"s. The most-quoted size of 1,200 meters apparently originated with West End Games, and is often presented as the generic size of MC80 Star Cruisers. The Return of the Jedi script and novelization contradict these later sources by describing Home One as the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, corresponding to its visual appearance in the film.

The game Star Wars: Empire at War scales Home One at approximately 3,200 meters. The game shows the Venator, Victory, Imperial, and Liberty classes in nearly perfect relative scale against each other. "Character" vessels are sometimes larger than their counterparts, which suggests that Home One may not be to scale, though the scaling is consistent with its size in Return of the Jedi.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:HomeOneScaling-EaW.jpg

Interesting. Though this does little to change the problem, except promoting the Home One from "not even a tenth of an SSD" to "not even a seventh of an SSD"

But it does introduce the possibility that the biggest ship in the game might end up being a rebel one.

Once again someone is saying a sliding scale is "unavoidable."

Once again, I'm going to say it most definitely is not. I did the math. I'm quoting it again below since no one commented on it before. This is just one example. Im sure if consensus was that the ISD should be a foot long, that would double the size quotes I have here and still everything could be in one constant scale. Excepting, of course, fighter squadrons.

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.

The statement "FFG isn't making the game for the sake of making the game, they are making it because there is clear player demand for it" is an opinion, not a fact. It won't be a fact until the game is out, it is marketed, and people are actually buying it.

Not as far as FFG is concerned. One need only spend a few minutes on the X wing forum to see that there was a sizeable demand for a capital ship game. It is, quite literally, an observable fact. The demand for such a game is further proven by the response of the X wing community to the preproduction release of Armada. Marketing has already begun simply by the game's introduction and FFG will continue to create demand with the release of cards, characters and ships.

That is the point here in this thread ... it is POSSIBLE that many won't buy the game if the scaling issue isn't addressed in a reasonable way. We have been debating what would be a reasonable approach.

This is quite probably the least likely outcome from Armada and the scaling bugaboo. If the models are rendered beautifully and game play is as great as it seems to be, then scaling will have little to no impact on the game's sale. Those factors above others will be the biggest contributors to its success. Attack Wing is a fairly successful game in its own right in spite of its haphazard scaling.

Rithrin's post deserves a second reading from forum members. He's spot on in his assessment.

The argument you offer above is specious at best. Even if you believe for the moment that "it's unavoidable", that doesn't make it right, nor does it justify making a game for the sake of making a game. As has been stated by many others in this thread, if there isn't some consistency in the scaling, there are many who won't purchase the game.

In my opinion, if you can't maintain some semblance of "order" within a game, then perhaps the game should not be made in the first place - that is, perhaps the very idea and basis of the game is not suited to a "miniatures" game.

No one, including me, have stated anything about right or wrong. It is a thread about scaling, and the way many of us feel would be the best approach.

Oops.

Once again someone is saying a sliding scale is "unavoidable."

Once again, I'm going to say it most definitely is not. I did the math. I'm quoting it again below since no one commented on it before. This is just one example. Im sure if consensus was that the ISD should be a foot long, that would double the size quotes I have here and still everything could be in one constant scale. Excepting, of course, fighter squadrons.

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.

So a consistent scale that makes the Executor about 6 and a half feet long is "extremely possible"?. Good thing nobody could possibly want the potential for something like that in the game, right? Of, and excepting (of course!) fighter squadrons. More on that later.

Let's be honest here: whether such a thing is possible is largely going to be a matter of opinion. If you're willing to accept a tiny enough size on smaller ships along with an obvious range distortion (because let's again be honest: Nobody gives a flying fig about distance scale, only the shiny model scale) then yeah, you can probably pick a scale that works. Whether that's possible to do in an interesting game - maintaining a visual appeal for everything involved, and without restricting interesting ships that people will obviously want to see - is another matter.

Let me flip this around then: Why is a sliding scale acceptable for fighters, but not the capital ships? Shouldn't we have pinpoint-sized fighter squadrons in perfect scale? Why is it OK for fighters but not for the smaller (or super-large) capital ships?

Honestly, it seems to me you have your answer. You just need to look in the mirror.

The ships were obviously out of scale in the Rebellion PC game. It didn't bother me then, I don't see why it would bother me now. I can understand people wanting things in scale. But, I don't think it is reasonable to expect it outside of a very niche game.

Buhalin,

What does that silliness about looking in the mirror mean? Your response came off as rather snarky and insulting. I'm assuming you did not intend that, but all the same. Your tone could be interpreted that way. You might consider that in further responses.

But to address the substance of your points: SSD's are probably impossible in the game. Not because of scale, but because of points value. If a VSD is in the neighborhood of 85 points, and people are suggesting that standard games might be around 250-500 points, how can an SSD possibly fit into that? Just estimating the points value of an SSD suggests that it alone would cost several times the value of both sides in a 500 point game.

Now, as to why it is acceptable for the fighters to be on a sliding scale and the ships not be, well, that's an easy one. This game is not about fighters. Its about the capital ships. Fighters have to be used as squadrons to make them significant as a threat to the capital ships. That being the case, model them as such and let the capital ships take center stage. In other words, do the opposite in Armada of what X-Wing does. X-Wing is all about the fighters, in which case a sliding scale for the big ships more acceptable. Armada is all about the capital ships, which makes a sliding scale for fighters more acceptable.

That does not seem unreasonable to me.

Thank you for the new view on that question. I think it helps explain why, for some of us, the fighters appearance is less important than the capital ships.

There's this continued talk about the scaling of power between the various ships already introduced and how it would be very difficult to fit something like the Executor into the game. X wing's already turned this on its head by offering a subgame system in Epic, something which could be doable in the later stages of Armada. So, I would not count super-ships out quite yet. Beyond that, we don't really know how much difference a single dice makes in this game in terms of power. Those three frontal dice on the VSD could be DEVASTATING compared to two attack dice. We're also still unaware of what the various upgrade cards are, how strong ship's superstructures are, what the damage deck looks like or even the possibility of having ships with multiple broadside arcs. These are all things that can be used to good effect to create a satisfying version of a SSD that isn't overpowering, but challenging in a large game.

If there's one thing that FFG has done with its previous system is show just how ingenious they can be. At each stop in a wave, many players have been left with a question of "Where can we go from here?" Only to be met with new and interesting upgrades, ships, rules, etc.

Buhalin,

What does that silliness about looking in the mirror mean? Your response came off as rather snarky and insulting. I'm assuming you did not intend that, but all the same. Your tone could be interpreted that way. You might consider that in further responses.

Oh, it was totally intended to be snarky and insulting. Thanks for noticing.

The rest of your post helps to illustrate just how utterly hypocritical this whole thing is (which leads to the snarky and insulting). It's fine for fighters to be out-of-scale, because they're not what the game's about. Why? As the original article points out, fighters are an absolute core of space combat in Star Wars. Is there a single on-screen action which doesn't involve fighters? But you decide that it's not what this game is about, so it's fine to change the scale for THOSE. Just not anything else. And if it can't your precise requirement, the game shouldn't even be made. That may not be exactly your point, but it's what others on your side of the argument are saying.

My comment about the mirror was simply this: There is obviously a line where you're willing to accept modified scale. This is true for everyone. Thinking your line is the one and only true place that can be drawn, and if the line isn't drawn right there then the game shouldn't be made, is seriously obnoxious.

If you aren't going to by the game, fine. I look forward to the upcoming months of people who won't play the game bitching about it, because that's always fun. But it's far too late to think you're going to influence the design of the models.

Now, to a slightly more substantive point:

But to address the substance of your points: SSD's are probably impossible in the game. Not because of scale, but because of points value. If a VSD is in the neighborhood of 85 points, and people are suggesting that standard games might be around 250-500 points, how can an SSD possibly fit into that? Just estimating the points value of an SSD suggests that it alone would cost several times the value of both sides in a 500 point game.

Armada is rather obviously going for a geometric or even logarithmic scale. (All info via Wookieepedia) A CR90 has 8 total turbolasers, represented in game by 5 red and 3 blue attack dice. A Victory-class has 120 turbolasers, plus 80 concussion missile launchers, represented by 9 red and 5 blue attack dice. A 15x increase in armament results in slightly less than double the offense.

What would that mean for a Super Star Destroyer? No idea, honestly. But it's not outside the realm of reason that it could be to Armada what the CR90 is to X-wing.

Buhalin,

Thanks for admitting the insulting nature of your posting. For that reason, I have reported it to the moderators. I will no longer respond to someone who is obviously trolling and out right lying about what I and others did and did not say.

I will respond to those who want to have a mature and respectful discussion about the subject.

Have a nice day.