On the Assault Frigate and the upcoming Mon Cal ships, it seems that they shoot best out of the side firing arcs. The MC30 being a missile cruiser, I don't picture it speeding in and then turning to its side to unleash its payload. Empire at War makes me visualize the best guns in the front for all ships, and I would assume the best would be made the strongest hull zone as it faces the enemy. Even worse, the Assault frigate front shields are the strongest, yet it isn't designed to fight from there. Being a Rebel player, I want to have a greater understanding of the ships, and I was hoping someone had an explanation.

Look at how the ships are built (Long and Narrow) Makes no sense to have awesome guns forward. They are made for broadsides

Also I'm glad the ships are different makes the game more interesting.

Look at how the ships are built (Long and Narrow) Makes no sense to have awesome guns forward. They are made for broadsides

Also I'm glad the ships are different makes the game more interesting.

What about the MC30? It is basically built like a space submarine with torpedoes and stuff. Can you picture missiles coming out the side? I am having the most trouble with that. Home One makes sense to this explanation though.

Look at how the ships are built (Long and Narrow) Makes no sense to have awesome guns forward. They are made for broadsides

Also I'm glad the ships are different makes the game more interesting.

What about the MC30? It is basically built like a space submarine with torpedoes and stuff. Can you picture missiles coming out the side? I am having the most trouble with that. Home One makes sense to this explanation though.

Think of them as destroyers from WW2 more than submarines and it may feel better. As they may launch massive payloads out each side verses straight on giving a better spread.

What about the MC30? It is basically built like a space submarine with torpedoes and stuff. Can you picture missiles coming out the side? I am having the most trouble with that. Home One makes sense to this explanation though.

In space, the missiles won't lose their forward momentum after being launched because there's no air resistance. It will keep going forward the same speed as the ship was going, except sideways now too.

Certain specific ship classes aside, the Rebel ships have generally always been depicted in pc games and other sources as being most potent using their broadsides, while Imperial ships are generally more forward firepower orientated. I think this was originally done in games like Rebellion/Supremacy to make the two sides more distinct, and it makes sense that this has also carried over to Armada for the exact same reason.

Theoretically if you want to be really aggressive with the AF2 you can fly forward tanking early hits on your front shields, then either turn or fly past the targets and start making the most of the double broadsides. Having lots of shields on the front allows a ballsy move like this rather than just using it as a stand off gunship.

The question is if it will survive the attack run. Needs testing really, but most of the talk so far has been about standing off. Once people get the hang of formations i think this will be inefficient.

Theoretically if you want to be really aggressive with the AF2 you can fly forward tanking early hits on your front shields, then either turn or fly past the targets and start making the most of the double broadsides. Having lots of shields on the front allows a ballsy move like this rather than just using it as a stand off gunship.

The question is if it will survive the attack run. Needs testing really, but most of the talk so far has been about standing off. Once people get the hang of formations i think this will be inefficient.

AF may be rather "tanky," but if it can do adequate damage at range, then it should do so. Vs imperials at least. Imperial ships get real nasty up close . . .and you'll quickly see that power gap widen.

Vs other rebels though, I would say sure, you can probably afford to get closer.

Like you said though, need to see it action first. (My stuff wont get here until tomorrow.)

Also it gives the two factions some distinction. The Empire is generally much stronger up front, while the rebels are typically more for broadside combat. Similar to old naval ships.

I would prefer the side hull zones to be stronger because once you get a ship in your side arc you can the start to circle them and may very well end up with some great shots off at the aft section. The front hull zone is good for the approach but you will be spending more time with them in your side hull zone if you try to follow them.

Also it gives the two factions some distinction. The Empire is generally much stronger up front, while the rebels are typically more for broadside combat. Similar to old naval ships.

And generally better at getting on the imperial flanks to deliver that broadside.

Maybe they're compensating for how ridiculous the Nebulon-B side arcs are. 1 shield for the widest arc and no redirects? Sheesh.

Maybe they're compensating for how ridiculous the Nebulon-B side arcs are. 1 shield for the widest arc and no redirects? Sheesh.

Blame the naval architects at Kuat Drive Yards for that extra spindly midship section.

The Assault Frigate's design makes a lot of sense, actually. You can tell by looking at it's stats and shield distribution that it's meant to charge forward at the enemy, using it's beefy 4 frontal shields to soak the damage it takes getting into position (redirecting any damage to the side it plans on turning into after it engages...), then running circles around it's target, where it can keep it's best firing arc (the side) pounding the enemy who is struggling to point their front at it in return.

In game terms, at least, the rebel ships all make a lot of sense. In "reality" terms, well, most of the ships don't "make sense", including those of the Empire.

Maybe they're compensating for how ridiculous the Nebulon-B side arcs are. 1 shield for the widest arc and no redirects? Sheesh.

well it was apparently designed for anti-squadron duty, and the big spindly sides give you wide coverage for anti-squadron batteries

the magnetic attraction they have to fatal blast fire wasn't exactly the designers' primary concern

The Assault Frigate's design makes a lot of sense, actually. You can tell by looking at it's stats and shield distribution that it's meant to charge forward at the enemy, using it's beefy 4 frontal shields to soak the damage it takes getting into position (redirecting any damage to the side it plans on turning into after it engages...), then running circles around it's target, where it can keep it's best firing arc (the side) pounding the enemy who is struggling to point their front at it in return.

In game terms, at least, the rebel ships all make a lot of sense. In "reality" terms, well, most of the ships don't "make sense", including those of the Empire.

I take umbrage sir!

Our ship design is the only one that makes sense. Big engines and as many guns and hangars as we can cram on it!

We win by simply being too dangerous to attack, unless you're a madman...like the rebels.

I really don't see why broadsides are so good at circling.......a victory and AF at long range sit there throwing three dice at each other while achieving a whole lot of not much.

It lacks testing in armada, but in all other capital ship games i have played broadside ships out preform forward fire ships when using both their broadsides.....if most the tend to be on par or worse.

Afmk2 wins out over the victory at long range by virtue of the evade token

the extra die out of paragon is also awesome since getting two arcs on a medium base isn't the most difficult thing in the world

better maneuverability and access to speed 3 help it circle pretty well, which is essential for avoiding the front arc. Once you're clear, bringing the front/rear + side arc on a victory just mulches the poor thing (esp with paragon and x17 lasers )

I really don't see why broadsides are so good at circling.......a victory and AF at long range sit there throwing three dice at each other while achieving a whole lot of not much.

It lacks testing in armada, but in all other capital ship games i have played broadside ships out preform forward fire ships when using both their broadsides.....if most the tend to be on par or worse.

The Victory's got RRB, while the AAF has RRRB, and can take Enhanced Armament just like the Vic to stay ahead.

And if you can pull off an "Ackbar Slash" and drive into the midst of the enemy formation then you can put both broadsides to work.

It seems like Enhanced Armament might be required for AF's, thats RRRRB, then the gunnery command can add a die, probably blue, for a total of RRRRBB. (I like the coloring )

Then, you can add plenty of other upgrades to it to make it even more effective, but I think I will stick with minimalists, maybe only 1-2 upgrades each. And I would take 4 in a 100 point match of course!

Simplify, and add lightness. Wait, that's Lotus.

Joker, I didn’t mean a victory should trade broadsides with an AF......that’s very obviously not going to work. The tactic I don’t follow is trying to focus on long range broadsides, which means the victory will probably keep the AF in its front arc for a fair while and so they end up trading equal dice.

Ficklegreendice, the AF absolutely wins at long range (due to the evade), but I think its a very marginal advantage.....one where the game probably ends before significant damage is done to either party.

I decided to have a go at testing a few of the ideas in this thread to see how the play out on the table. In all cases the ships used were base victory II's, and AF2b's with enhanced armament. Things were further made unrealistic since this is just me pushing stuff around on a table, and there were no other ships/commanders, squadrons on the table.

I tried three main ideas:

• stand off at as long a range as possible

• circle, while trying to stay out of the front arcs

• drive straight at them, take the damage then move past

Additional variables were 1v1, 2v2, no commands given.

Onto the tests:

Test 1 – 1v1 commands as normal.

Stand off:

In this scenario I tried a couple of different deployments. One where both ships are headed in roughly the same direction (so that they would converge if neither ship turns), and one where they point straight toward one another. With this latter deployment I wanted to see if the AF could avoid the front arc by tricking the victory into turning the wrong way.

A few of things became apparent fairly quickly:

• Its very hard to avoid the victories front arc if it uses a few nav commands. That arc is wide, and a speed 1 double click turn tracks a ship trying to dodge round fairly effectively.

• If the AF focuses on long range (something like speed three, one click left followed by one click right) then neither ship really has the fire power to punch through the others engineering commands. I did a couple of rounds like this and dont think either ship lost any hull points.

• If things are looking bad the AF can disengage from the fight easily as long as it hasnt started crossing the T. This gives up its own fire power to do so, but its nice to have a bail out card if needs be.

Overall it seemed like a bit of a stale mate, with the AF having everything to lose if it gets its commands wrong and ends up sitting in the front arc at medium/close range for a turn or two.

Circle out of arc:

Same thing with the deployments. This proved to be really hard to achieve with the head on deployment. It was actually the converging deployment that proved easier for the AF to dodge the arc on, it usually ended up cutting across the front arc for one or two volleys before being firmly out of reach ever again. These wound up being quite close matches, it strikes me as a risky tactic because sooner or later the AF is going to get caught and it just comes down to how many blanks are rolled in that time.

Head on aggression:

This actually proved to be the most effective tactic. The AF was flying forward at max speed, taking one big hit right on the front shields and then zooming round behind the victory. It proved important to have a nav command both during and after the head on volley, and having a nav token banked up. I was finding that the AF would need the nav command to be sure of clearing the victories front arc after taking the hit, without this it could get stuck and then its all over. It also needed the command and token the turn after to slow down enough to actually keep the victory in range after the pass.......neither ship turns particularly well and without the nav command + token the AF just zoomed straight past making no use of its great new position.

I also tried all of the above without commands.......in this case the victory just gets abused. Without those nav commands it is so easy for the AF to escape the front arc its not even funny.

Now for the 2v2 tests.

Given the dramatic increase in deployment options here I haven’t tested everything yet. I tried three different victory deployments against pretty much the same AF deployment:

• victories deployed pointing straight forward with a short range gap between

• victories deployed at medium/long range from one another, both angled roughly towards the centre of the space between them (like the lower half of an X)

• victories deployed with one slightly ahead of the other pointing diagonally across the table.

Stand off/circle

The stand off and circle tactics quickly merged and evolved into “get in medium range of one victory and at long range/out of range of the other”. While one AF takes a bit of a beating from the forward firing victory the two combined hammer it down fairly quickly, the trailing victory ends up with some fairly horrible long range obscured shots.

I was really surprised to see just how much more effective this was as a pair than as an individual.

Theoretically using even more nav commands the victores might be able to regulate their speed to the point where they hit together despite the AF speed (they would actually run out of table to evade into).....however this might just take too long and give up too much shield regeneration.

Head on:

This did not work against the offset deployment. The AF's need space to pass into that isnt inside the front arc of the second victory, to get that they just ended up going into the circle/evade strategy, but took more damage in the process.

Where it did work was against the X deployment and the straight ahead deployment.

In both cases its a seriously ballsy move since the AF's are going to take three point blank range shots from the forward arcs of the victories (this can be engineered so that its on two separate facings and/or obscured though).

There are some benefits though:

• its very easy to get dual arc shots off both AF's onto a single victory......the damage from this is horrific!

• The AF's can end up getting in the way of the victories turns, but not have their own next moves obstructed. This means that while they take a turn or two of brutal shooting they never have to worry about another one afterwards.

This wound up destroying one victory in two turns, with neither of the AF's going down.

Summary:

In the 2v2 matches the circle/evade and head on fights ended up being about as effective, in both cases a victory would be reliably bought down and it was hard work for the empire to drop an AF.

The head on attack resolved the fight much quicker.

The circle/evade took a while, but was usually only using one arc to attack with. Thus there is great potential in this tactic if the opponent has split their fleet into two groups that are a fair way apart.

The AF's may turn better than a victory but they are seriously not a nimble ship! They ran into a fair few problems with running off the table after evading the front arc. If you are flying these things, keep a very careful eye on your speed......I foresee far more of these being flow off tables than victories or nebs.

The difference in damage between 3 red + 3 blue and 4 red + 1 blue was not insignificant (haven’t done the maths on this, its just the impression I got).

I love the difference in results between the 1v1 and 2v2 matches, very interesting!

I also tried a couple of volleys from a vic II with X17's......that was horrible. There is a lot still to work out.

I have no idea what happens if the vic II's became vic I's.......the head on tactic probably becomes suicide, and the circle/evade becomes much easier.

Maybe they're compensating for how ridiculous the Nebulon-B side arcs are. 1 shield for the widest arc and no redirects? Sheesh.

Blame the naval architects at Kuat Drive Yards for that extra spindly midship section.

Boothy, I'm loving the amount of work you've put in on working out the optimal strategy for Assault Frigates its what I'm trying to work out over my next dozen matches or so. One thing I didn't see was how you you are setting up the Assault Frigates in Deployment, as I think its pretty key to get them lined up to maximise the overlap on their Broadsides. At the moment I'm trying an offset deployment with both of the Frigates facing towards one of the sides and but one with its nose tilted 45degrees towards the opponents edge so that once they start moving they can curve up into line astern/column formation. Tried it last night, and ran full pelt between two star destroyers, obliterated one of them but the exchange cost me one of my frigates due to my poor target priority(I went for a Vic 1 gunnery ship as it was worth double VP, rather than Vic 2 Dominator that could actually hurt me.) . I also agree with you 100% about the amount of ground an Assault Frigate can cover as once I was past the Star Destroyer my Speed 3 Move and his Speed 2 broke the engagement, I then had to decelerate to avoid going off the edge of the board(we were only playing on a 4x3.) and couldn't catch up with him to re-engage by the end of Turn 6 letting him limp back to Imperial command with no shields and 2 Hull.