I think its more the Rebels focus on fighter-bombers with a longer operational range for their fighter forces while the Empire focuses on pure fighters to protect their big ships against bombers and fighter-bombers, and since the purpose of most Imperial fighters is to stay close to their carriers and defend them they don't need a long operational range.

Yep, quite true. Battleships, aircarft carriers and all sorts of ships were sunk in World War II by aircraft. There's a few instances of ships being sunk in 1945 by a single Kamikaze aircraft. So anything is possible. Are we likely to see dedicated strike craft like Y-Wings and TIE Bombers?

What we are seeing is a lot of wild speculation without a shred of evidence as to how it all is going to work. I guess that just shows how impatient we all are.

FYI but the most tonnage sunk in WW2 was by USN Fleet class submarines. After all no ship that small has a cloaking device.

; )

Yes I was fully aware that submarines sunk many more ships than Kamikaze attacks. The biggest battleships in the world, the Yamato and Musashi were both lost to aircraft attack. My point was that the one little pesky mosquito buzzing around a Star Destroyer can still have the potential to damage it. Nothing is immune to damage.

Don't forget that the Bismark and Tirpitz were both sunk by bombers.

Well also remember the Rebels are fighting a gorilla warfare while the Empire is trying to keeps its systems in control. So the Rebels will be relying on fast hard hitting ships that can get in and out of systems without being detected. So the fighters have to be able to travel in hyperspace because star carriers would be impractical for gorilla warfare.

The Empire would not want to have the Clone pilots acting on their own as Rebel pilots have to and after the Clone War the idea of clones acting on their own without an upper command near by does not happen. But being the main power in the galaxy with tens of thousands of capital ships patrolling they can rely on the heavier ships.

In the end we will see more support corvettes and heavy destroyers for both factions. These are just the most iconic ships in the main box. The first wave is an idea of what will come.

Yep, quite true. Battleships, aircarft carriers and all sorts of ships were sunk in World War II by aircraft. There's a few instances of ships being sunk in 1945 by a single Kamikaze aircraft. So anything is possible. Are we likely to see dedicated strike craft like Y-Wings and TIE Bombers?

What we are seeing is a lot of wild speculation without a shred of evidence as to how it all is going to work. I guess that just shows how impatient we all are.

FYI but the most tonnage sunk in WW2 was by USN Fleet class submarines. After all no ship that small has a cloaking device.

; )

Yes I was fully aware that submarines sunk many more ships than Kamikaze attacks. The biggest battleships in the world, the Yamato and Musashi were both lost to aircraft attack. My point was that the one little pesky mosquito buzzing around a Star Destroyer can still have the potential to damage it. Nothing is immune to damage.

Don't forget that the Bismark and Tirpitz were both sunk by bombers.

Bismarck wasn't sunk by bombers. A squadron of Fairey Swordfish only managed to jam her rudder. Being unable to maneuver, she was pounded by surface forces and finally scuttled by her crew.

Another point brought up by the Essential guide to warfare is that with hyperdrive equipped fighters you could modify a bulk freighter to launch them, park it near the the target system then send the fighters in and the base ship couldn't need weapons, armor or escorts because the odds of the enemy stumbling across it would be nearly zero. And obtaining and modifying blk frieghters would be much easier for the rebels then obtaining capital warships..

Yep, quite true. Battleships, aircarft carriers and all sorts of ships were sunk in World War II by aircraft. There's a few instances of ships being sunk in 1945 by a single Kamikaze aircraft. So anything is possible. Are we likely to see dedicated strike craft like Y-Wings and TIE Bombers?

What we are seeing is a lot of wild speculation without a shred of evidence as to how it all is going to work. I guess that just shows how impatient we all are.

FYI but the most tonnage sunk in WW2 was by USN Fleet class submarines. After all no ship that small has a cloaking device.

; )

Yes I was fully aware that submarines sunk many more ships than Kamikaze attacks. The biggest battleships in the world, the Yamato and Musashi were both lost to aircraft attack. My point was that the one little pesky mosquito buzzing around a Star Destroyer can still have the potential to damage it. Nothing is immune to damage.

Don't forget that the Bismark and Tirpitz were both sunk by bombers.

Bismarck wasn't sunk by bombers. A squadron of Fairey Swordfish only managed to jam her rudder. Being unable to maneuver, she was pounded by surface forces and finally scuttled by her crew.

Of course how could I forget, but that arrow to the knee, ah I mean torpedo to the rudder did her in.

Well it was the beginning of her end. It would be interesting to see how effective the likes of the TIE Bombers and Y-Wings and B-Wings are going to be against capital ships in Armada. We shall see.

I wonder if dedicated bombers will be able to inflict critical hits on capitals. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility.

Fighters are for Armada what 360°-turrets are for X-Wing. An option for people who don't want to plot maneuvres.

Fighters are for Armada what 360°-turrets are for X-Wing. An option for people who don't want to plot maneuvres.

You're dead wrong about X-wing, and I suspect that once we see the full rules you'll discover that positioning fighters is fairly important too.

Fighters not just being range 1 but also have the engaged rule that essentially blocks their movement when enemy fighters are at range 1 means that maneuvering fighters is going to be its own challenge. If you blindly move fighters towards capital ships, expect the opposing fighters to ensure that none of your fighters will ever loose a single shot at those capital ships. And vice versa if you blindly send your fighters to intercept opposing fighters, they'll just circle around them laughing all the while.

You lose the game if all capital ships are eliminated. You can't rely solely on your fighters because they are too easy to tie up with other fighters, and without a command can't move and shoot.

You lose the game if all capital ships are eliminated.

I assumed this, but it's nice to hear it from someone who's played the demo.

You can't rely solely on your fighters because they are too easy to tie up with other fighters

This has been my feeling, I'm assuming you will want fighters if for no other reason then anti-fighter options. Also it seems like if one side manages to gain space superiority it will give them a pretty big advantage. Since their fighters will be free to act.

and without a command can't move and shoot.

This means that someone who tries to fly a list of a CR-90, commander and 200+ points worth of fighters is going to have a hard time winning, since the CR-90 can only command one squad at a time.

That all means that I think once again FFG has done a great job of balancing the game while keeping the feel intact.

You lose the game if all capital ships are eliminated. You can't rely solely on your fighters because they are too easy to tie up with other fighters, and without a command can't move and shoot.

In the battle over Endor the Rebel fighters wouldn't have lasted five minutes by themselves. The fighter's weapons alone wouldn't deplete the larger ship's shields. without the capital ships heavier fire power.

Then again the Capital ships wouldn't last five minutes without fighter support.

It's a symbionic relationship, one needs the other.

Maneuvering fighters is no challenge at all. They are predictable, as they can always take the direct route, and even more predictable with the engaged rule. As fighters are easily intercepted by fighters, fighter groups will be exchanged. The surviving fighters will attack the capital ships with the worst flak. The only interesting point is predicting how many fighters your opponent will bring.

Maneuvering fighters is no challenge at all.

I have to ask how many demo's you played. I'm assuming you played at least a couple to arrive at this conclusion.... You've also seen all the rules, and upgrades as well. Because otherwise there may be things that we don't know about that have a huge impact on how fighters work.

@VanorDM ... as a regular poster of multiple forums, you should know by now that "being sensible" and posting on the Internet just do not mix. Please stop this nonsense.

Please stop this nonsense.

Sorry... I shale go watch either 15 groin shots, or 5 cat videos as penance...

But I just can't help but call someone out on such blatant nonsense. We still know next to nothing about this game and how it will work, even the people played the demo only saw part of the game. So to make statements like that, I just can't let it go.

I do the same thing on MMO boards too, so perhaps that says something about me.

The one thing I think will be clear, is you're going to have to use ALL your available assets very carefully coordinated with each other to secure victory. I firmly believe that a capital ship without fighter protection is going to be an easy target for bombers. But how much damage the bombers can inflict, is still the question.

Maneuvering fighters is no challenge at all.

I have to ask how many demo's you played. I'm assuming you played at least a couple to arrive at this conclusion.... You've also seen all the rules, and upgrades as well. Because otherwise there may be things that we don't know about that have a huge impact on how fighters work.

I have seen the demo video from gencon. The rule for fighters is something several tabletop rules use, e. g. Full Thrust, so I actually do have enough experience.

so I actually do have enough experience.

No you don't. You haven't played the game, you haven't seen the rules, you haven't seen the upgrade cards... Playing other games that involve miniature space ships means jack... You have no experience at all to make this call.

Maneuvering fighters is no challenge at all. They are predictable, as they can always take the direct route, and even more predictable with the engaged rule. As fighters are easily intercepted by fighters, fighter groups will be exchanged. The surviving fighters will attack the capital ships with the worst flak. The only interesting point is predicting how many fighters your opponent will bring.

While you may be right to an extent, you neglect to factor unique fighter and pilot abilities into your assumptions.

The "Escort" rule, for example, adds some increased depth to fighter maneuvering right off the bat.

And the fact that the squadron command changes the entire balgame of when fighters can maneuver and shoot.

And the fact that the squadron command changes the entire ballgame of when fighters can maneuver and shoot.

Was just going to mention this. Say I use my squadron command from my first ship to move and activate an A-wing squad (or two) right into the center of all your TIEs. Looks like my Ys and Bs will be free to pummel your capitals unless you really fan out your squadrons.

The big question is whether this will be a WWII game. All that counts is air superiority, don't bother to bring anything but carriers. Boring, because all that matters is bringing the right mix and amount of bombers and fighters, a strategic decision. The tactical decisions for maneuvering them can be done by a robot (not a Star Wars robot, they are too emotional) as there is no way to get past air superiority fighters. This does not depend on the special rules for fighters but on the chances of a capital ship to survive fighter attacks without a fighter screen. Flak apparently being able to shoot at any number of attacking squads in its arc does help a lot in that direction. (If you have the choice between a logical and a working game mechanism, choose the working one.)