I think a base game of Armada will have enough tactics and nuances to satisfy. You have to pick commands in advance, you have both squadrons and ships to worry about, facing and speed are incredibly important, and different ships will have very different specialities.

Honestly if you are looking at fringe builds (3x VSD with minimal fighters, 6x CR90, etc) then obviously tactics will suffer as you are maxing out on one ship type, but a balanced game (1 VSD, 2 GSD and fair sized fighter screen, 2 Neb-B & 2 CR90 and bombers) will have tactics galore. Which ships are positioned where, the choice of picking the heavy hitters (VSD, Neb-B) at long range and ignoring the closing smaller ships (GSD, CR90) who might get into your rear arc if you let them, or instead focusing on the greater threat in the future (those evil black dice). How to position your interceptors to allow your bombers to pass into firing range, deciding whether or not to have a CR90 shoot at the Vic or the TIEs in its forward arc.

I agree that 500+ point games will have even more of this, but I think 300 points is reasonable for an ~hour long game.

Now, with friends I will definitely be doing some grand battles with 2 VSDs, 2 GSDs and a host of fighters flying against a swarm of CR90s backed up by Heavy Hitting Assault Frigates.

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

The rules stipulate a maximum of 1/3 points for squadrons. That would be 12 normal TIE fighter squandrons or 7 normal X-WING squadrons in a 300 point game. Commander upgrades will then reduce those numbers.

Honestly if you are looking at fringe builds (3x VSD with minimal fighters, 6x CR90, etc) then obviously tactics will suffer as you are maxing out on one ship type, but a balanced game (1 VSD, 2 GSD and fair sized fighter screen, 2 Neb-B & 2 CR90 and bombers) will have tactics galore. Which ships are positioned where, the choice of picking the heavy hitters (VSD, Neb-B) at long range and ignoring the closing smaller ships (GSD, CR90) who might get into your rear arc if you let them, or instead focusing on the greater threat in the future (those evil black dice). How to position your interceptors to allow your bombers to pass into firing range, deciding whether or not to have a CR90 shoot at the Vic or the TIEs in its forward arc.

I agree that 500+ point games will have even more of this, but I think 300 points is reasonable for an ~hour long game.

I'm feeling the same way. I see people repeatedly talking about wanting to field multiples of very high point ships (VSDs, ISDs, mainly; everyone wants their fleet to be Death Squadron). These 'fringe builds' as you put it are going to be smoked by savvy commanders. The game was designed to require a fairly diverse set of capabilities out of a 300 point fleet. TIEs look like they'll melt pretty fast in the face of a decent Rebel Fighter group. Just relying on a handful of TIEs to prevent those Rebel fighters (all of which, except the A-Wing, have Bomber, plus superior battery dice) from ripping through your hull is going to be bad news bears.

Honestly if you are looking at fringe builds (3x VSD with minimal fighters, 6x CR90, etc) then obviously tactics will suffer as you are maxing out on one ship type, but a balanced game (1 VSD, 2 GSD and fair sized fighter screen, 2 Neb-B & 2 CR90 and bombers) will have tactics galore. Which ships are positioned where, the choice of picking the heavy hitters (VSD, Neb-B) at long range and ignoring the closing smaller ships (GSD, CR90) who might get into your rear arc if you let them, or instead focusing on the greater threat in the future (those evil black dice). How to position your interceptors to allow your bombers to pass into firing range, deciding whether or not to have a CR90 shoot at the Vic or the TIEs in its forward arc.

I agree that 500+ point games will have even more of this, but I think 300 points is reasonable for an ~hour long game.

I'm feeling the same way. I see people repeatedly talking about wanting to field multiples of very high point ships (VSDs, ISDs, mainly; everyone wants their fleet to be Death Squadron). These 'fringe builds' as you put it are going to be smoked by savvy commanders. The game was designed to require a fairly diverse set of capabilities out of a 300 point fleet. TIEs look like they'll melt pretty fast in the face of a decent Rebel Fighter group. Just relying on a handful of TIEs to prevent those Rebel fighters (all of which, except the A-Wing, have Bomber, plus superior battery dice) from ripping through your hull is going to be bad news bears.

Time will tell if a Fat ISD is going to be king of the game or if it is the tactical one that can out position and get in your rear arc and blast you from behind? I plan to be the latter.

That's what I like about this game so far, you could throw all your points into Star Destroyers and have a couple of hard hitting tanks but you Will be out manuvered for sure. They are slow and turn like a Battleship, which they are, but if you don't have faster support ship you will be flanked and you may not get to an objective on time.

Time will tell if a Fat ISD is going to be king of the game or if it is the tactical one that can out position and get in your rear arc and blast you from behind? I plan to be the latter.

Interesting.

Do you trick out your VSD/ISD with engine techs and other upgrades to try and negate is lumbering nature, surprising your opponent with your "Zippy" tank?

Or do you say screw it, and turn your Star Destroyers into floating castles, bristling with extra weapons and offensive/defensive upgrades and just turtle into the middle of the battlefield, blasting away

I figure 300 pts will be the tournament scene and expected game size in order to complete in a reasonably quick time .

What is stopping anyone from outside of the tourney scene playing whatever size they want? Who doesn't want to play epic size games?

I also meant to add as more ships are available to buy, the chances of seeing large fleets on the table will be far better. People will want to use more of their collections.

Coming from a player that feels 100pts is too small for x-wing I also feel that 300pts for Armada is too small for maximum enjoyment however for competition 300pts is where it needs to be to remain competent. Without the limit beast swarms and outlier extremes would prevail and ruin the game.

300 is fine for tourny play in order to get games done quickly.

But i can easily see large 900 point games for true head to head fleet battles.

But honestly, with objectives, why would you jsut want to smash two fleets together?

I can definitely see campaigns happening and spanning both Aramada & Xwing between small fleet actions to large fleet actions (Probably the Imperials attacking rebel worlds) or small fighter engagements (Hit and run tactics rebels use)

Mix and mash them all and I think you'd have a great campaign. Hell get the RPG in there as well and you can have a grand old time

I figure 300 pts will be the tournament scene and expected game size in order to complete in a reasonably quick time .

What is stopping anyone from outside of the tourney scene playing whatever size they want? Who doesn't want to play epic size games?

I intend to try to get other people to play epic sized games. But my worry is that many players, just like in X-wing, don't want to play more points than the basic 300pts if for no other reason than that is what tournaments are held at.

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.

Here's a breakdown, with examples from an Imperial POV:

Grand Strategy -- How do I retain control of the galaxy?

Strategy -- How do I keep the Rebels away from Endor?

Grand Tactics -- How do I maneuver my squadrons to defeat the Rebel admiral?

Tactics -- How do I maneuver my ISD in order to get the best firing position on the Rebel CR90?

So, you're still talking at a tactical level. Sure, your ISD has more weapons than that X-Wing, but the level of action isn't really any different, and in fact many of the principles are the same, e.g., concentration of firepower, how to avoid damage, etc., etc.

If people are only willing to play within the tournament limits then you are probably at a club who has forgotten how to have fun.

That said, if you want the club to embrace games outside the hardline size, you will have to be willing to do the work to keep interest in larger games. Set up narratives, campaigns, custom scenarios. I find that over the last 15 years of running the local game group, its a bit of a task to keep people interested. But if you are willing to do the work to organize larger games, then you will see larger games.

It is early yet, I think more waves will see more ships, and more people wanting to use larger collections in games.

It is early, so I think you are right. As people get larger collections they'll be more willing to play epic games.

The group in my area (for X-wing) has been great, we've played a few epic X-wing games, but the biggest problem with X-wing epic was the lack of objectives. People bunched up and it was all about concentrated fire en masse. So I believe you are right, if I do the work to create objectives/scenarios it could be successful.

Dissenting Opinion Incoming:

I do feel this game will be far more strategically oriented, with tactical elements, part of the reason for that is the lower number of ships. Strategy doesn't have to be "big", it's inherently different than tactics, however. Strategy goes into effect before the ships start their first move, heck, before they even hit the table.

Ship combat here is tactical, there's nothing strategic about it. Squadron combat more strategically oriented however, as you merely set them on your plan and you don't truly control their outcome or decide who or what they will engage. They engage with whatever threat presents itself (other squadrons), even if that isn't the primary objective. You don't wind up having much control over this outside of executing their general strategy, which determines when and how those engagements "should" occur well in advance.

As a quick example to clarify, you have x-wings and you know you want to avoid tie fighter screens and gun straight for the big ships, so you split your X-wings up to either side of the map and deploy them as late as possible, after most tie fighters have already dropped down in the center of the enemy deployment zone, screening the big ship directly, expecting a head-on engagement. This is strategy, and this is what determines these engagements on a deeper level. The control you have over movement is not precise enough to dance around engagement zones and avoid other ships all together. It's all too easy for the opponent to order one of his random tie squadrons to engage that guy who is trying to get around things. However, that initial set up, that strategy, that thought process that went into how ships should or should not approach different situations right from the start, that's strategy.

Those x-wings flanking are following a strategy that will allow them to split or outright ignore the ties. Your control over their movements is where the tactical side of the engagement comes in, trying to react, avoid or engage the enemy based on your strategy. Who dies in what engagement is also very much up partly to chance, target priority and ship build. A squadron fights B squadron, statistically, as an armchair general, according to your knowledge, A should take some damage but come out on top of B, so you can develop your strategy around that survival in advance. It might not happen, you barely control the outcome, you merely influence it.

Now, back to big ships. Right off the bat, you are pre-selecting your movement speed before the game even starts. These are not tactical level decisions, these are strategic decisions. The speeds are plotted long before you know exactly what is awaiting you, as you only have a rough idea of what's on the other side of the board. Every move or change speed, you make thereafter is a tactical level decision, reacting to combat, following the "doctrine" so to speak, making decisions according to the battle at hand in real time.

Now, your general flight path before the game starts is a big part of the strategy, but as anyone would, plans change. Those changes happen at the tactical level. A "pure" strategy game has you set your battle plan against the enemy's battle plans, then you just watch it unfold and hope for the best. Those sort of games do exist, (Gratuitous Space Battles is a great example) but being largely non-interactive after the set up, they aren't the most exciting or competitive games.

The command dials are the same for larger ships. You're plotting out what they WILL be doing, not what they are currently doing. It's not until halfway through the game that the ISD even has an opportunity to change it's initial strategy, and even that was decided several turns prior. For smaller ships, such as the 1 command dial corvette, this concept applies less, but it's still in effect.

Now, right away I mentioned how the smaller number of ships helps the strategy aspect of the game. Here's what I mean by that. When plotting a strategy, a very important part of that is managing your available resources and making said resources available in the first place. This comes down not only to list building and ship selection, but ship placement, rock/debris/station placement, etc.

Before you even hit the field, you have a limited number of these resources available to you, and you do not have room to screw around and hope for the best. You've got three small rebel ships against a star destroyer, for example. None of them are a match directly, and they have support. You want to go into the battle with a plan, with an idea of how your ships should interact and proceed across the field in an advantageous manner. Having so few ships on each side makes those small decisions immensely more meaningful. You can't react to everything, you don't have that kind of control, and you can't go in blind. That strategy matters. Each tactical decision is influenced by your strategy and represents how far from your strategy you are willing to deviate.

Few ships is a good thing for this kind of strategic mindset. Your resources matter. You don't have an all-star ace that can just jump around to any foe and come out on top. Positions matter, moves matter. Tactically, you have some freedom but not absolute control. If you want to engage the enemy on your terms (easy to do in x-wing), you need to have a plan well in advance on how to achieve that goal.

A mix of strategic and tactical gameplay is really what this game is striving to be, and truly, what we (in general, not everyone) desire out of this game. We are part arm chair general and part fleet commander. Those are two very different levels of roles in battle. As the general, the strategy you set forth does it's best to dictate the flow of battle onto your terms. However, as the old adage says, no strategy ever survives contact with the enemy. That is where you as the Fleet commander come in, making the strategy work, but adjusting the best that you are able when the situation changes.

The low number of ships and the slower pace of the game means that those tactical decisions are harder to make, while the impact of those tactical decisions are very binding and even more important. What you find, turn to turn, is a developing strategy. The change to the initial strategy is good and all, but now the situation is different, you are locked into a different course, you must continue to think strategically about what is and isn't important and what your next several moves will be. When the time comes to make those moves, you repeat the cycle of choices.

Would more ships be more strategic? I think it would stay roughly the same, but maybe less so. With more ships, you have less capability to plan on the encounter because you have more resources to manage and less knowledge to manage them. The result, then, is that many of these ships will be there to fit a role, but how to best go about getting that ship to fill that role won't be apparent until all or most ships are on the table. Right away you're making tactical decisions, important decisions, based on far less information (as the earlier ships deploy, less of the enemy ships have deployed as well, so you're making decisions based almost entirely on guess work).

In battle, the resources you have at your disposal can find themselves repurposed far more quickly, which means greater and greater deviation from the strategy based on new and updating information. More ships on the table, in the end, means a more tactical game. Each ship matters slightly less, shifting priority and taking attacks of opportunity are more important. This is not necessarily bad, and certainly isn't to say that it makes for a bad game! But the greater number of ships decreases the effectiveness of strategy, while increasing the effectiveness of good tactical decision making.

TL;DR, This game, in my opinion is an excellent, excellent example of encouraging strategic thinking in a fun, fluid way without taking away from the power of choice, decision making and skill. The ship amount is just about right for what this game is trying to achieve, a strategic, cerebral experience using badass plastic space ships.

Want tons of ships in a huge fleet going head to head? Do it. I bet it's a blast! But, competitively and mentally, this is a level of critical thinking and matching wits with my opponent that I can really sink my teeth into.

Well I played the introductory game twice and watched it played one time and I think 300 pts is good. Considering that 180 pts seemed chock full of strategy and such it will be even more incredible with 300 pts.I think anything more than 3 large ships will be too much for a game.

You said in like three sentences exactly what I was trying to convey in 13 paragraphs. I admire your brevity.

I think anything more than 3 large ships will be too much for a game.

That'd be a bummer in my opinion but it sounds like I might be in the minority.

I don't see it mentioned in here yet, but on page 3 of the tournament rules , it states that the official tournament sizes will increase with each wave, culminating at 400 points when wave 2 comes out.

Core Set Only - 180 points

Wave 1 - 300 points

Wave 2 onwards - 400 points

YES 300 POINTS IS TOO SMALL!

Wave 2 sets the game at 400 points. FFG just posted the tournament rulebook. Game becomes 300 points on Wave 1. I believe its really a matter of the Large capital ships being introduced. They will require more points, but not necessarily more time to play as the game is still limited to 6 rounds. But, I believe I will probbaly skip Large sized ships and expand Small or Medium sized ships in a fleet - and BWings/Bombers. 400 points allows and extra 33 points of fighters - so - I am sure many people will be boosting their orders of the fighter expansion packs, or buying the villany set. I'd like the oppurtunity for several Gladiators to provide quick screens with their speed.

I think the 400 point Wave 4 limit seems to sit about right to match my prediction of ISD/MC80s floating around the 150 point range, 2 will fit with a Commander+a small Fighter screen, maybe a small cap(Raider/CR90) if everything is ran bare, but there will be no room for 3 Larges

I'm hoping the Raider has amazing anti-fighter capabilities, then Imps might be able to run a 100% Cap ship list, 1 ISD, 2 GSD and 2-3 Raiders. If they can throw out 3 or 4 dice against squads then they should be enough to make up for the lack of a fighter screen.

I'm hoping the Raider has amazing anti-fighter capabilities, then Imps might be able to run a 100% Cap ship list, 1 ISD, 2 GSD and 2-3 Raiders. If they can throw out 3 or 4 dice against squads then they should be enough to make up for the lack of a fighter screen.

I don't think there's any way they'll have 4 dice vs. squadrons, and even 3 seems unlikely based on all the ships so far only having 1 or 2 anti-squadron dice.

I'm hoping the Raider has amazing anti-fighter capabilities, then Imps might be able to run a 100% Cap ship list, 1 ISD, 2 GSD and 2-3 Raiders. If they can throw out 3 or 4 dice against squads then they should be enough to make up for the lack of a fighter screen.

I don't think there's any way they'll have 4 dice vs. squadrons, and even 3 seems unlikely based on all the ships so far only having 1 or 2 anti-squadron dice.

While true that nothing has had it yet, it isn't impossible. If the Raider has 2 blue dice in its forward arc that would make up for having 3 Dice (Probably 2 Blue, 1 Black, so that it only benefits at close range) in anti-squadron. It would be a ship that primarily focused on fighting squads rather than other capital ships (which is a perfectly valid capital ship class).

I didn't say it was impossible, only unlikely. The CR-90 had 3 blue dice agaisnt squadrons in an early picture we saw, then that got changed, presumably because it proved overly powerful against enemy fighters. 2 bue and 1 black does sound like that would be reasonable, although I dont' have the numbers in front of me to figure out what the exact odds would be for each.