Simple question - is the "standard" fleet size, 300 pts, too small?

It's enough for 3 VSDs, but with negligible upgrades or fighter support. It'll probably be enough for a couple of Mon Cal cruisers when they're released, MAYBE two ISDs bare-bones?

But should the standard fleet be larger? I can't help but think back to my experience with Battlefleet Gothic, which I LOVED. There wasn't a competitive tournament scene like there is with FFG's games, but the "standard" fleet ranged between 1000 and 2000 points, with 1500 being the norm. That was enough for a battleship and several cruisers, maybe 6-8 capital ships with several escort vessels (and fighters were free). The scope was never unmanageable, but with that many ships it felt like a FLEET action, not a little skirmish.

My concern with Armada - and I haven't played it yet so maybe this is unfounded - is that there won't be ENOUGH ships in standard play to make the game strategic. When you're moving and engaging with 6-8 capital ships, even the movements of slow lumbering ships like a Victory Star Destroyer are interesting because you have to coordinate movements, etc. But if I only have two VSDs and they only can turn once a turn and there are only six turns in the game, that's just...not that interesting.

Now, I totally get that this is only the initial release, and maybe the "standard" game will get bigger as we progress to Wave 1 and Wave 2. But then again, maybe it won't - X-Wing is still stuck on 100 points as tournament standard, and it's been out a few years now.

What do you guys think? For those of you that have played with the starter box, is moving one VSD ever so slightly every turn interesting? The rule set seems great on paper, especially movement, but I worry that without bigger fleets, it might get a little stale. Am I wrong?

Larger fleets would be more ideal, but I think there are several factors that weigh in on it.

First off, price. When an individual ship costs as much as a playable X-wing list, price becomes an issue. A 500 point list, especially at the advent of wave 1 may be a little too much to swallow for some buyers. A 600 point list could require more than 1 of everything.

Another issue at hand is the swarm factor. Make the point limit too high and people can swarm small ships and fighters in a way that may be too powerful or just drag turns out far too long.

I fully expect that ,somewhere around wave 3, they'll announce epic rules and give us room to use considerably larger fleets.

Part of it may just be context also. We really only see one large scale fleet battle on screen in the original trilogy. Other engagements are small groups of capital ships. Same goes for the clone wars cartoon series. We saw lots of capital ships, but usually they were in detachments of 1-3 capital ships. Small scale engagements are much more common than fleets containing half the available Imperial Navy.

Being a Battle Fleet Gothic Fan (And Firestorm Armada, and Uncharted Seas and Star Fleet Battles and and and) I can't help but see Armada as a Fleet Battle game. Whether right or wrong, I see the future as larger skirmishes.

A lot right now depends on playing the game and seeing how it flows initially.

Simple question - is the "standard" fleet size, 300 pts, too small?

It's enough for 3 VSDs, but with negligible upgrades or fighter support. It'll probably be enough for a couple of Mon Cal cruisers when they're released, MAYBE two ISDs bare-bones?

But should the standard fleet be larger? I can't help but think back to my experience with Battlefleet Gothic, which I LOVED. There wasn't a competitive tournament scene like there is with FFG's games, but the "standard" fleet ranged between 1000 and 2000 points, with 1500 being the norm. That was enough for a battleship and several cruisers, maybe 6-8 capital ships with several escort vessels (and fighters were free). The scope was never unmanageable, but with that many ships it felt like a FLEET action, not a little skirmish.

My concern with Armada - and I haven't played it yet so maybe this is unfounded - is that there won't be ENOUGH ships in standard play to make the game strategic. When you're moving and engaging with 6-8 capital ships, even the movements of slow lumbering ships like a Victory Star Destroyer are interesting because you have to coordinate movements, etc. But if I only have two VSDs and they only can turn once a turn and there are only six turns in the game, that's just...not that interesting.

Now, I totally get that this is only the initial release, and maybe the "standard" game will get bigger as we progress to Wave 1 and Wave 2. But then again, maybe it won't - X-Wing is still stuck on 100 points as tournament standard, and it's been out a few years now.

What do you guys think? For those of you that have played with the starter box, is moving one VSD ever so slightly every turn interesting? The rule set seems great on paper, especially movement, but I worry that without bigger fleets, it might get a little stale. Am I wrong?

Honestly, I think that there will be enough ships and squadrons in play (once Wave 1 comes out, at least) that there will be plenty to do. The 300-point limit is just a standard; you can play with as many points as you want.

When the first point values were shown in the demo at Gen-con, I tried to make the best guess at what the standard point limit would be and ended up at 350 seeming the most sensible, but some point values have been lowered, and the lower bound for the cheaper commanders has been shown, so my first guess could be adjusted closer to 325ish. This seems like a much better point level that would allow for a fuller squadron roster and more upgrades on ships without allowing a huge increase in the number of ships on the table.

Honestly, when building some fleets using all the info we have currently, it really feels like the 300 point limit was made without acounting for the cost of the manditory commanders.

300 points were probably also the point level that one can run a tournament and have players still finish a game in the timed rounds. You can of course ask your opponent to play higher point values.

from a fluff standpoint, it is too small. I want to smash FLEETS together

from a realistic gameplay standpoint and given the complexity of the rules of Aramada, I think we'll be fine

I can see my local group going for 600 point games mostly so we can fit every thing we want in, especially when the ISD's come out this summer (I hope any way). It is supposed to be played on a 6 by 3 so I cant see how its not possible to do 600 easily and still keep in the objectives, it would also make for a much more brutal game. although I can also see the turns being ramped up in numbers as well for that size of game.

Obviously the timed nature of tournament play forces some restrictions, and obviously people will be free to play as many points as they want when they play casually.

I just wonder - again, without having played the game yet - whether Armada is really a FLEET battle game or X-Wing, but with capital ships (i.e., Attack Wing, from what I gather).

What makes a FLEET battle game compelling, I think, is the strategic aspect - i.e., the way the several large ships maneuver and engage together. I'm talking flanking, crossing the T, concentration of force, etc. I would consider X-Wing to be a tactical game - it is more focused on the actions of each individual ship.

In a 300 point game, you're looking at 3 VSDs, tops. It seems like there will be plenty to do with each individual ship but I'm concerned the strategic scope might be too limited.

I would assume for casual play (what I will mostly be doing) the points limit can be as high and as low as you want so I see in casual play like 500 - 600 point games being the norm and in local tournaments at game stores 400ish being a possibility depending on player count mind you but over all I feel 300 is right for the game on a heavy tournament level. It means you can get the games in within the time and it forces you to think extremely hard about the list before you even start the game. Although this is all speculation until the game is in our hands and we get a good couple of games in.

I rather doubt we'll have a limited strategic scope between the inherent complexity of even the humble corvette and the additional complexity objectives bring to the game

plus, while we have limited numbers of capital ships, we can bring **** tons of fighter squadrons if so desired, adding yet another element of complexity

we're going to have low model counts compensated for by highly complicated rules and interactions, leading to fewer but far more impactful choices for the player to make

Obviously the timed nature of tournament play forces some restrictions, and obviously people will be free to play as many points as they want when they play casually.

I just wonder - again, without having played the game yet - whether Armada is really a FLEET battle game or X-Wing, but with capital ships (i.e., Attack Wing, from what I gather).

What makes a FLEET battle game compelling, I think, is the strategic aspect - i.e., the way the several large ships maneuver and engage together. I'm talking flanking, crossing the T, concentration of force, etc. I would consider X-Wing to be a tactical game - it is more focused on the actions of each individual ship.

In a 300 point game, you're looking at 3 VSDs, tops. It seems like there will be plenty to do with each individual ship but I'm concerned the strategic scope might be too limited.

That's not strategic. It's still tactical.

Wait until the first time you over extend you victory to two well maneuvered corvettes. When they are sitting behind you, it feels like getting tactically destroyed.

from a fluff standpoint, it is too small. I want to smash FLEETS together

from a realistic gameplay standpoint and given the complexity of the rules of Aramada, I think we'll be fine

The fleet size is likely far more accurate for the fluff then larger ones.

The Rebels would never risk a real Fleet on Fleet engagement.

I think tourney play is great at 300. friendly games I'll be aiming for double that for a "grand scale"

That's not strategic. It's still tactical.

I can't approve of this comment enough! Nothing about this game is strategic except perhaps list construction. The entire engagement is tactical, and will be awesome.

Unless the diversity in ships makes it fun to have a mixed fleet (I'm boycotting the Assault Frigate MKII, because it's conceptually awful), more points don't seem necessary. Large scale fleet engagements will be enjoyable eventually, but at this point, the Rebels don't have enough high-point ships, and the Imperials don't have any real low-point ships.

Real fleets should be made up of:

• HVUs (High Value Units) - Primary focus of fleet. Key output of damage at long range , Command and Control, opponent's key objective
• Inner Screen - Anti-fighter role. Their objective is to prevent fast-movers from utilizing their high damage-to-cost ratio on HVUs; also, prevents having to waste HVU attacks on fighters
• Outer Screen - Multi-role ships. Objectives: Making an opponent's end-run at HVU's a costly/difficult endeavor. Be a buffer between HVU and enemy fleet, to allow HVU's to maintain and take advantage of their range
• *Picket - Wide range of potential here, but maneuverability and speed are key. They stay out of formation and attempt to flank. Offensive goals: Try to get the enemy screen out of position by diving-into and retreating-from enemy's flank and/or generally harass enemy. Defensive goals: plug enemy movement/fire lanes

* Less important, I'm guessing, given the way the game seems it will play out.

Examples of each (either current or my assumptions for future ships):

• HVU: VSD-II, ISD-I/II, MC80s, Imperial Escort Carrier (Ships with high Squadron and/or large amounts of Red Dice)
• Inner Screen: Raider- Corvette, Lancer- Frigate, Corellian Gunboat, A-Wing, TIE/ln, TIE/int (Ships with the ability to intercept/eliminate enemy bomber squadrons)
• Outer Screen: Carrack- Cruiser, Strike- Cruiser, CR90B, Gladiator SD-I/II, VSD-I (Ships that are maneuverable enough to stay in formation as HVU's maneuver, and can shell-out a significant number of red/black dice)
• Picket: Nebulon-B Frigate, CR90 A/B, Carrack -Cruiser, Corellian Gunboat, VT-49(maybe) (Fast or long-range ships that can either cause or take advantage of a break in the enemy fleet's formation; something low-point enough that you're not going to be devastated if it's lost.)

Point values*Number of ships required = Total: (Provides range for small to large battles, roles filled by squadrons are approximated/left out of calculations)

• * HVU: 100-180, 1-2 = 100-360
• Inner Screen: 2-3 * 50-60 = 100 - 180
• Outer Screen: 2-4 * 40-80 = 80 - 240
• Picket: 0 - 2 * 30 - 60 = 0 - 120

*'Carrier'-type HVUs that rely on bombers to project long-range damage point-values estimated with the inclusion of squadrons

That shakes out to ~280 points for a small fleet, ~580 for a moderately sized fleet, and ~900 for a large fleet, which are basically the point values people have been talking about as the game gets bigger (I've heard 300, 600, and 1000).

I guarantee FFG took this estimated approach to designing the game mechanics for the ships. These are the roles that have been used in sea-warfare for the past 100 years, and the point values of ships already released seem to fit in this framework. As more ships become available, wouldn't doubt seeing these fleet design guidelines (or something similar) followed.

Unless the diversity in ships makes it fun to have a mixed fleet (I'm boycotting the Assault Frigate MKII, because it's conceptually awful), more points don't seem necessary. Large scale fleet engagements will be enjoyable eventually, but at this point, the Rebels don't have enough high-point ships, and the Imperials don't have any real low-point ships.

Real fleets should be made up of:

• HVUs (High Value Units) - Primary focus of fleet. Key output of damage at long range , Command and Control, opponent's key objective
• Inner Screen - Anti-fighter role. Their objective is to prevent fast-movers from utilizing their high damage-to-cost ratio on HVUs; also, prevents having to waste HVU attacks on fighters
• Outer Screen - Multi-role ships. Objectives: Making an opponent's end-run at HVU's a costly/difficult endeavor. Be a buffer between HVU and enemy fleet, to allow HVU's to maintain and take advantage of their range
• *Picket - Wide range of potential here, but maneuverability and speed are key. They stay out of formation and attempt to flank. Offensive goals: Try to get the enemy screen out of position by diving-into and retreating-from enemy's flank and/or generally harass enemy. Defensive goals: plug enemy movement/fire lanes

* Less important, I'm guessing, given the way the game seems it will play out.

Examples of each (either current or my assumptions for future ships):

• HVU: VSD-II, ISD-I/II, MC80s, Imperial Escort Carrier (Ships with high Squadron and/or large amounts of Red Dice)
• Inner Screen: Raider- Corvette, Lancer- Frigate, Corellian Gunboat, A-Wing, TIE/ln, TIE/int (Ships with the ability to intercept/eliminate enemy bomber squadrons)
• Outer Screen: Carrack- Cruiser, Strike- Cruiser, CR90B, Gladiator SD-I/II, VSD-I (Ships that are maneuverable enough to stay in formation as HVU's maneuver, and can shell-out a significant number of red/black dice)
• Picket: Nebulon-B Frigate, CR90 A/B, Carrack -Cruiser, Corellian Gunboat, VT-49(maybe) (Fast or long-range ships that can either cause or take advantage of a break in the enemy fleet's formation; something low-point enough that you're not going to be devastated if it's lost.)

Point values*Number of ships required = Total: (Provides range for small to large battles, roles filled by squadrons are approximated/left out of calculations)

• * HVU: 100-180, 1-2 = 100-360
• Inner Screen: 2-3 * 50-60 = 100 - 180
• Outer Screen: 2-4 * 40-80 = 80 - 240
• Picket: 0 - 2 * 30 - 60 = 0 - 120

*'Carrier'-type HVUs that rely on bombers to project long-range damage point-values estimated with the inclusion of squadrons

That shakes out to ~280 points for a small fleet, ~580 for a moderately sized fleet, and ~900 for a large fleet, which are basically the point values people have been talking about as the game gets bigger (I've heard 300, 600, and 1000).

I guarantee FFG took this estimated approach to designing the game mechanics for the ships. These are the roles that have been used in sea-warfare for the past 100 years, and the point values of ships already released seem to fit in this framework. As more ships become available, wouldn't doubt seeing these fleet design guidelines (or something similar) followed.

Great analysis of what the game could become.

That's not strategic. It's still tactical.

I can't approve of this comment enough! Nothing about this game is strategic except perhaps list construction. The entire engagement is tactical, and will be awesome.

Technically no game can have 'strategy' unless it involves:

Multiple Battles

Persistent Army/Fleet/Units

Ability to recall or retreat, punishment for failure

Anything that takes place inside of a single battle will always be 100% tactics.

The easiest way to think of it is: Tactics win battles, Strategy wins wars.

Campaign Armada anyone?? Would definitely be great once the game gets going to see house rules for an extended strategic game mode. Multiple battles building of new ships, etc...

300 points were probably also the point level that one can run a tournament and have players still finish a game in the timed rounds. You can of course ask your opponent to play higher point values.

This nails it on the head - FFG wants to have a healthy tournament community around this game, and that means battles that can be played in only an hour to an hour and a half. This means the points need to keep at that "skirmish" size, rather than an all out fleet battle. Of course that doesn't stop us at all from doing what we like at home or in our FLG's when playing casually

Well, whatever - if not strategic, call it ultra-tactical, or something. A larger tactical scope.

Armada, like X-Wing, seems to involve a lot of cutesy actions and upgrades to individual ships. Which is all well and good - I like X-Wing a lot. But I would expect a FLEET-based game to rachet up the level of complexity by increasing the number of ships involved and the way they interact with one another, as opposed to increasing the individual complexity of handling each ship, while keeping fleet sizes relatively small.

I just wonder whether Armada was decided as "X-Wing with Star Destroyers," which I wouldn't expect to scale particularly well up to 600 or 1000 or 2000 point games.

That's not strategic. It's still tactical.

I can't approve of this comment enough! Nothing about this game is strategic except perhaps list construction. The entire engagement is tactical, and will be awesome.

Technically no game can have 'strategy' unless it involves:

Multiple Battles

Persistent Army/Fleet/Units

Ability to recall or retreat, punishment for failure

Anything that takes place inside of a single battle will always be 100% tactics.

The easiest way to think of it is: Tactics win battles, Strategy wins wars.

Well, in a large enough battle, if you have multiple smaller tactical groups engaging similar smaller groups, how you engage/reserve your forces to win the larger battle could be considered strategy/strategic.

1a

I have not played the game yet, but if you examine te rules, you will see that a 300 point game - is limited to SIX (6) rounds of play. There is alot of stuff going on within each round though, and the game is objective oriented. I believe the best strategy will actually be what your initial setup is, and how each unit will compiment the others. The optional set of rules is unlimited rounds, but NO objectives (but obstacles instead), and a match to the death. The standard set of rules seems to be - get your objective, and defend it.