House rule to make squadron dogfights more 'clumpy'

By yakface, in Star Wars: Armada

Posted at

I've played a few games of Armada now, and while I very much love the game, if I have any complaint it would definitely center around some aspects of squadrons. The 'issues' mainly center around:

1) At the scale the game is set, it doesn't feel quite right to me how far apart the squadrons are when they're fighting against each other (or attacking a ship for that matter). Instead, when they're actually in contact with each other, it just feels somehow more 'right' and looks more cinematic to me, as at that point it is super clear that they're all fighting against each other.

2) As squadrons do tend to stay a bit spread out, it also tends to clutter up the board making it increasingly hard to find a time where you can cleanly place the ship measurement tool on the table without either pushing some squadrons out of the way or holding the measurement tool above the models (which isn't ideal, for sure).

3) It is fairly easy for the position of a squadron to get bumped accidentally out of engagement range without anyone noticing, especially when you're reaching down to adjust their damage dial and/or their activation slider. But this can even happen to a different squadron stand when you're busy adjusting another one.

Here is my suggested house rule to help alleviate some of these situations a bit. Note that this does in some cases fundamentally change the way the game works, so please don't read this as a 1-to-1 solution for these problems, but rather an alternate way to play Star Wars Armada for those who are so inclined that also happens to be kind of better in handling those above 'issues'.
Anyway, here it is:
When a squadron is performing an attack, after confirming range to its declared target, if the attacking squadron is not in contact with the target (in the case of a ship, this would be the specific hull zone that is being attacked) nor in contact with a friendly squadron that is in contact with that target, then it must immediately make a special attack run move before completing the attack.
An attack run is a special move whereby the squadron is moved by the shortest distance possible in order to contact its target. An attack run must still be performed even when the attacking squadron is engaged.
If the squadron cannot possibly contact its target with the attack run (due to other ships/squadrons completely surrounding it, for example), then it must be moved as close as possible (by the shortest distance possible) before completing the attack.
So what does this accomplish? Well mainly it tends to get squadrons way more clumped up with each other when they attack each other. These clumps tend to accomplish a few things:
1) I think they look way more cinematic on the table (my personal taste).
2) They tend to keep the table in general more open, meaning its more likely that you'll have space to properly measure your capital ship's movements with the measuring tool on the table.
3) You're more likely to notice when a squadron gets bumped accidentally, cause its easier to notice when two models in contact with each other are suddenly not in contact with each other.
4) If you do need to pick up a squadron to temporarily move it out of the way of a ship measurement, for example, its a lot easier to know exactly where to put it back (in contact with the enemy squadron) without having to place down a marker or anything like that.
So what do you think? Do you like it, hate it or what? Any interest in giving it a try?
Posted at

Interesting idea. Mercs "snap to cover" system immediately comes to mind. Attack runs on ships might get muddied when heros with longer engagement ranges show up. I do like the theory of clumping ships, though.

Posted at

simpler, down to one sentence to get the point across

When a squadron is engaged and is activated, move the squadron into contact with it's target.

I do like this idea, makes things simpler. But the problem is a Squadron has a "Threaten" area at range one from it. it is possible for a squadron that is engaged with Two squadrons, attack and destroy one of the squadrons, and make another squadron not engaged. To me it does take away a small element of tactics

Posted at

I like this idea too. Moving squadrons close to each other would look more cinematic, but I wouldn't move the squadron closer to a capital ship. They are already to big compared to capital ships, and as pointed out. Potential range modifiers are coming.

As to threaten area and tactics. It would just change them. It might be like using a squadron to try and draw the enemy fighters away from your intended target. Opening up a corridor in the battle for other squadrons to move through.
i.e. If they had to close the gap with a target squadron, it would be more of a sure thing that the opening to move another squadron through would appear.

Just a thought.

Posted at

simpler, down to one sentence to get the point across

When a squadron is engaged and is activated, move the squadron into contact with it's target.

I do like this idea, makes things simpler. But the problem is a Squadron has a "Threaten" area at range one from it. it is possible for a squadron that is engaged with Two squadrons, attack and destroy one of the squadrons, and make another squadron not engaged. To me it does take away a small element of tactics

It definitely changes things (I did say that in the OP), but I don't think it removes tactics, it just changes them. It makes you have to take careful consideration about which enemy squadron you choose to target (if you have a choice between two), knowing that doing so will pull you into contact with them.

It also might even present a situation where you choose *not* to attack, so that you can keep two enemy squadrons locked down. In that way, you could even say that it adds more tactical choice to the game.

Posted at

Although interesting, it could affect game balance when a ship can effortlessly catch large numbers of tightly grouped Squadrons with its Anti-Fighter Barrage.

Posted at

Have you put any thought to utilize that rule with the engagement rule? May be once a squadron is in engaged with another squadron you must touch bases at the halfway point between the two. If there is multiple then the person with initiative chooses. Just throwing out another element to keep things cinematic.

Posted at

I say put large magnets in the bases. When squadrons are close enough, they'll find their own contact point.

Posted at

What would you do with Maj Ryhmer?

Posted at

What would you do with Maj Ryhmer?

That is the question. It's where these rules start to fall apart. It doesn't discount them at all, however.

Posted at

I suppose I'm in the minority with the squadron engagement rules.

I have yet to find a single thing about them that i don't enjoy.

Learning about how obstacles affect engagement also changed my perspective on that. I like the range 1 stuff personally.

While moving the ships together does indicate somethings clearly, I can see why the rules are the way they are.

I also kind of like the aspect that you should be mindful of where to place your squadrons in the first place, because you may have to move them to complete a movement for the ship. I think it's down to the player, with that knowledge, to make his decisions from that foundation.

I don't think pushing them together will negate that fact very often.

I've played a few games, and I can see this is clearly designed. As my imperial opponent constantly put his squadrons in front of his ship, moving the ship first always meant i placed his squadrons where i wanted because he was ramming his own squads. Really making him see why it is that way, and why careful flying will help commanders enjoy the game.

my 2c,

Much peace,

Malev

Edited by Malev Da Shinobi
Posted at

The only thing I want more clumpy is cat litter :P

Posted at

What would you do with Maj Ryhmer?

Yeah, I should definitely mention that I've only considered this house rule based on the extent of the rules in the core set. I'm aware that there are squadrons with longer range, etc, and I'll definitely be taking a look at that stuff later and seeing if this house rule still makes sense in that context or needs to be tweaked.

Although in general I'm personally okay with the overall trade-off this house rule brings in regards to abstraction vs. the positives I feel it brings (listed in the OP). Yeah, squadrons can/are able to move further than they would in the standard rules, but the trade-off is that to 'use' this ability your squadrons are also getting pulled out of potentially useful areas in many cases to do so.

As I said in the OP, it is definitely a different game if you play this way. Whether or not you think it is better is entirely up to whether you agree with my initial assertion that there are things about the squadron rules that aren't as good as they could be. Obviously anyone who loves the squadron rules exactly as they are has no need to every contemplate ever trying out this house rule!