The lost fleet series is great!

I quite enjoy the battles, an constantly being reminded that ships in space will take WAY more damage than ships at sea, as they can't "sink".

I've had no problems with Gladiators thus far and I usually run 3x in an Imperial list as well. I just use CR90As with Engine Techs and they can't really catch me unless I've messed up the maneuver tool. Shoot, CR90s with Engine Techs work well versus the Great Whales too: do some damage and double bump the remaining hull points.

So this is how I classify the ships based on my time in the Navy and my love of fleets.

CR90: Corvette (simple enough, it is a light ship that is made to speed around and scout/hit and run)

Nebulon-B: Frigate (simple enough as well, a ship designed to take out smaller vessels and attack at range)

Gladiator: Destroyer (ships of this class are known for their speed and strong weaponry which is comparable to a cruiser but lacking in the armor when compared to a cruiser)

MC30: Destroyer

Assault Frigate: Cruiser (ships of this class are meant to take hits of the smaller vessels. They have decent firepower but their strength is in their survivability)

Victory: Heavy Cruiser (when compared to a basic cruiser these have stronger hulls, they sacrifice speed in order to be a keystone of a light Capital Fleet. In a fleet with Battlecruisers and above, these are key escorts ships whose job is to take out smaller vessels)

MC80: Battlecruiser (These ships are fast, strong and capable of take out smaller vessels with ease. These are the sharks of a fleet, whose purpose is to come in and shred bigger opponents with their numbers. It is not an uncommon sight to see such a ship as a flagship)

Imperial: This is a tricky one to classify. Having read the Lost Fleet series I personally place these as Scout Battleships (this class is lighter than a battle ship, forgoing some of the thicker armor for more maneuverability. They tend to have the same armament as a Battlecruiser and strong vs anything less than a full fledged battleship)

Now these are my personal classifications, I do use the Lost Fleet as a basis as well as my own experiences and research.

As a naval military historian I find 20th century naval classifications to be generally lacking because combat in Star Wars Armada is really more akin to 18th century naval tactics (ships of the line, gunnery as the primary form of damage, the broadside, devastating barrages at close range. ineffective long range shooting) than early 20th century naval combat (long range gunnery and torpedo duels) although the presence of fighters complicates this analogy somewhat. It's a weird mix of World War 2 carrier combat and 18th century Age-of-Sail tactics with WW1 fleet gunnery.

Based on current gameplay here's my take:

CR90: Long-ranged fast gunnery ship. There aren't really too many historical parallels to the corvette but it would come closest to an age of sail Sloop-of-War, like the Cruizer class Brig Sloop, which had the highest ratio of firepower to tonnage of any ships in the Royal Navy. Note that Corvettes from 1900-1945 did not mount heavy guns with sufficient calibre to pierce the armour of Battleships so they did not engage them in direct combat while the CR90 actually has the best damage-to-point ratio in the game currently and can harass Star Destroyers from range and thus function quite differently.

Nebulon-B A Frigate: Frigate is a problematic description for this class since it designates being built for speed and maneuverability. which the Nebulon can be but usually doesn't. It's either a long-range standoff gunnery platform ( Salvation ) or a Carrier ( Yavaris ). As the Yavaris it's more akin to a light aircraft carrier- Escort Carriers were technically too slow to keep up with the main fleet but the Nebulon is quite fast. As the Salvation, it performs more or less like a Battlecruiser: fast heavy guns at long range, but weak armour and folds to a stiff breeze, and the fatal flaw of mounting its guns in the front so it has to close distance to whatever it's shooting at.

Assault Frigate MKII: In the current meta the AFII is the perfect blend of speed, survivability, damage and carrier capability, making it the best all round ship in the game at the moment. As such it's the primary Ship of the Line; expected to do most of the work. It's the Dreadnought of Wave 1, making all prior models seem obsolete in comparison. With Gallant Haven, Adar Tallon and Hangars it functions like a Fleet Carrier; with Paragon and Enhanced Armaments it performs like a Dreadnought Battleship in the 1915 sense - firing heavy broadsides from medium-long range while circling the enemy, while being faster and more survivable than anything the enemy can field.

Victory SD - The slow and plodding VSD functions more or less like a pre-Dreadnought battleship in the current metagame, Pre-dreadnoughts like the Canopus mounted a significant broadside of heavy guns but were too slow to bring them to bear effectively. However, as a carrier it performs well in which case it becomes more or less like a Fleet Carrier in World War 2, the mainstay of the fleet, but with guns. In the real world there is really no historical parallel to the Battlestar- Carriers do not mount heavy armament and Battleships don't launch fighters, but this is Star Wars so you can have your blue milk and drink it too.

Gladiator - A strange beast, fast and deadly up-close but with practically no long-range armament, but still tough enough to withstand barrages. Probably the closest thing to how Fischer envisioned a Battlecruiser would perform, but without the long range armament. It attacks like a torpedo Destroyer would in WW1 or a Carronade-equipped ship-of-the-line like the HMS Glatton in the 18th century but is the size and speed of a cruiser. There really isn't a historical parallel ( Cruiser sized - ships tend to fight at long range and not indulge in headlong attacks at close range.) apart from the carronade equipped ships of the line in the 18th century, which tended to be rare beasts.

I agree with the use of 18th century naval ships but some of your classifications seems off.

Generally, ships are classified by tonnage these days. Using the Lost Fleet as a reference, it is more about overall size than just weight. Which is in line with Star Wars general reference though it is heavily blurred. . . I mean a Victory is 900m and is a Star Destroyer while an Imperial is 1600m and is a star destroyer as well.

Another issue I have with your classifications is that they will change once wave 2 hits, then again with wave 3, etc.

Now with using current naval classifications, there is the issue with how combat works. While Star Wars does use an 18th century type of combat I really look at WWII to WWII as the reference point.

Sounds like the owner is either parroting what someone else said, or lost to a GSD and instantly declared it "broken."

Both scenarios piss me off.

Sounds like the owner is either parroting what someone else said, or lost to a GSD and instantly declared it "broken."

Both scenarios piss me off.

but sadly inveitable

rejoice, fellow admirals, for these initial cries of "OP!" are proof that Armada is now joining the ranks of literally every competitive game ever

That's not what's going on in this case, though. I think Beatty might be against the coalescence around an net-decked meta, rather than people coming up with their own builds, and having greater diversity of lists.

My regular opponent and I have agreed to just grab Fabs Fleet Widget and go random from time to time. That way we get taken out of our comfort zone for ship selections and upgrades.

personally, only challenges get me away from my comfort zone

people keep going on about GSDs, so now I gotta run some dual VSDs

personally, only challenges get me away from my comfort zone

people keep going on about GSDs, so now I gotta run some dual VSDs

I feel the same way on the Rebel side, I started running Nebulon-Bs for the challenge and haven't looked back.

Also, if the fighter doom combo that was circuitously discussed is what I think it is, then it's not nearly as unbeatable as it's been made out to be.

I myself haved made a resolution of sorts to try a completely different list every time I play,(imperial only of course) so I started with a vvg screed build then did a V G aces list, then duel victorys tanks etc etc

The GSD Demolisher is powerful, but hardly overpowered. To get the combo off, you need a minimum of ~22 odd points of bonus tacked onto a ship. That makes it as expensive as a VSD or AF2, while being probably a fairly even match for a VSD or AF2 in a one on one situation. It goes down hard when taking return fire, which the Rebels will have plenty of... as well as nasty bombers. Those defense tokens will NOT keep it alive up close.

First it was the 3 VSD, then it was the 2 MkII, Now it is the GSD.

Everything seems balanced to me, nothing has taken the throne yet.

Now Fat Turrets in X-wing that is a clear dominating build in a game.

I myself haved made a resolution of sorts to try a completely different list every time I play,(imperial only of course) so I started with a vvg screed build then did a V G aces list, then duel victorys tanks etc etc

Me too. I have certain lists I think are just solid in most engagements, but I consider tinkering one of the joys of the game, so I tinker and try new lists.

If there is some powerful combo, there will be three groups.

1. It is overpowered, I hate this game because of this meta

2. It is not overpowered, you jsut need to counter with this....

3. MEh

I just played a game, with 2 AF with some bombers against 1 VSD and 2 GSD. Rebels went first and chose Fleet ambush.. mainly to get his squadron closer. The IMperials tried to box in the AFs with the GSD flanking, and the VSD running up the middle. Demolisher got one close range forward arc, shot at an AF. Without accuracy to negate a brace defense the damage can be minimized. Thus ECM is the prefect counter. After that the Imperials were never able to get a front arc shot again, and the other GSD did its best impersonation of a lancer frigate. Otherwise the AFs are fast enough to keep their distance.

First it was the 3 VSD, then it was the 2 MkII, Now it is the GSD.

Everything seems balanced to me, nothing has taken the throne yet.

Now Fat Turrets in X-wing that is a clear dominating build in a game.

For my area it was VSD, then the Glad, and now the AFmrkII. I got a few more games in and am really getting the hang of it! It is a beast in the amount of battlefield control it gives you, and allows me to pick an element and kill it while staying away from the rest of his stuff.

(Essentially I turn the fight into a 300 vs 150 point match, and the maneuverability of my fish is essential to that)

First it was the 3 VSD, then it was the 2 MkII, Now it is the GSD.

Everything seems balanced to me, nothing has taken the throne yet.

Now Fat Turrets in X-wing that is a clear dominating build in a game.

For my area it was VSD, then the Glad, and now the AFmrkII. I got a few more games in and am really getting the hang of it! It is a beast in the amount of battlefield control it gives you, and allows me to pick an element and kill it while staying away from the rest of his stuff.

(Essentially I turn the fight into a 300 vs 150 point match, and the maneuverability of my fish is essential to that)

The AFrog has had a rough time in our games. It can take a pounding but has been routine victim of straying too close to the GSDs or wandering into the VSD's murder zone.

Tonight's battle it got Rhymered and wandered into the front volley of two VSDs.

Granted, that cost me as Salvation and a couple corvs punished me mightily for not taking them seriously enough.

I am not going to say that there are not things out there that I do not like (I am talking to you Gallant Haven), and my first response was that it was broke, but after stepping back I think that everything has a counter in the game. You may not be able to play the way that you did before it came out but nothing I have seen yet can not be countered, some are just easier than others.

I agree with the use of 18th century naval ships but some of your classifications seems off.

Generally, ships are classified by tonnage these days. Using the Lost Fleet as a reference, it is more about overall size than just weight. Which is in line with Star Wars general reference though it is heavily blurred. . . I mean a Victory is 900m and is a Star Destroyer while an Imperial is 1600m and is a star destroyer as well.

Another issue I have with your classifications is that they will change once wave 2 hits, then again with wave 3, etc.

Now with using current naval classifications, there is the issue with how combat works. While Star Wars does use an 18th century type of combat I really look at WWII to WWII as the reference point.

The classification of a ship refers to what role it plays, rather than its mass or size. I prefer to analyse the game and make classifications based on how ships actually perform and what they do, rather than slapping on an arbitrary label based on tonnage if we're making real world comparisons.

There's no parallel to 'Star Destroyer' in the real world, so as a classification it's relatively meaningless to us, but from how the Imperials use it ( Ship-of-the-line, carrier, battleship) it fits the Battlestar trope ( Warship that launches fighters but also relies on guns and armour and closing with the enemy to do damage.)

Considering Wave 2 isn't here yet and we don't know what shape the meta will take since we don't know the points costs of the ships, it's too early to speculate beyond the obvious.

In World War 2 carriers fought each other hundreds of miles away by launching waves of fighters and torpedo bombers. They rarely even caught a glimpse of each other. In Armada you manoeuvre your carriers up to nearly point-blank range and shoot each other with broadsides. The clue's in the title... the game is closer to the how the Spanish Armada fought than any modern form of combat.

There's something to be said for how each generation mythologises and romanticises the mode of combat of a generation before, to the extent a relatively primitive method of shooting cannonballs into wooden sailing ships lined up against each other has been captured by the popular imagination to be the imagined standard (if romantic) form of naval combat (similar to how novice admirals in the early Victorian era were obsessed with fire ships and ramming.) Star Wars' popularity in part is due to the way it taps into that mythological narrative and presents it with retro-futuristic aesthetics in a space-opera setting.

Armada combines many prominent tropes of Naval combat throughout history (Greco-Roman ramming, 19th Century ship classifications and gunnery, 19th century ideas of the 'heroic captain' and 'unique flagship', 20th century ship movement and World War 2 naval aviation) to present an idealised, heroic version of how we dreamed naval combat should be since young, which it is why it's so appealing.

Repeat after me. "There are no broken ships in Armada. Only broken enemies."

I wonder to what degree our experiences with other games made us expect broken stuff, and maybe even so as a marketing tool. (Buy this and you will win your games.)

I know that's certainly how I felt back in the day when Skaven were released for Warhammer Fantasy in 4th edition. Overpowered and undercosted.

I also felt a bit like that when the Phantom was released for X-Wing last year, which made me not want to play the Phantom. Fortunately, for the latter they nerfed it a bit, and now I love playing it. It's brokenness was also mitigated by the huge meta shift towards turrets. (Not that I wish that had happened.)

But I don't think FFG powercreeps to sell minis. I just think the Phantom-as-released was a mistake, that they've since corrected.

I don't yet see anything of the sort in Armada, though. (The Mark II is a tough ship, but it'll go down.) But maybe many of us have battered gamer syndrome and expect our games to be broken by abusive gaming companies.

Well it's only wave 1...

I sure hope they didn't realise something broken all ready!

I agree with the use of 18th century naval ships but some of your classifications seems off.

Generally, ships are classified by tonnage these days. Using the Lost Fleet as a reference, it is more about overall size than just weight. Which is in line with Star Wars general reference though it is heavily blurred. . . I mean a Victory is 900m and is a Star Destroyer while an Imperial is 1600m and is a star destroyer as well.

Another issue I have with your classifications is that they will change once wave 2 hits, then again with wave 3, etc.

Now with using current naval classifications, there is the issue with how combat works. While Star Wars does use an 18th century type of combat I really look at WWII to WWII as the reference point.

The classification of a ship refers to what role it plays, rather than its mass or size. I prefer to analyse the game and make classifications based on how ships actually perform and what they do, rather than slapping on an arbitrary label based on tonnage if we're making real world comparisons.

There's no parallel to 'Star Destroyer' in the real world, so as a classification it's relatively meaningless to us, but from how the Imperials use it ( Ship-of-the-line, carrier, battleship) it fits the Battlestar trope ( Warship that launches fighters but also relies on guns and armour and closing with the enemy to do damage.)

Considering Wave 2 isn't here yet and we don't know what shape the meta will take since we don't know the points costs of the ships, it's too early to speculate beyond the obvious.

In World War 2 carriers fought each other hundreds of miles away by launching waves of fighters and torpedo bombers. They rarely even caught a glimpse of each other. In Armada you manoeuvre your carriers up to nearly point-blank range and shoot each other with broadsides. The clue's in the title... the game is closer to the how the Spanish Armada fought than any modern form of combat.

There's something to be said for how each generation mythologises and romanticises the mode of combat of a generation before, to the extent a relatively primitive method of shooting cannonballs into wooden sailing ships lined up against each other has been captured by the popular imagination to be the imagined standard (if romantic) form of naval combat (similar to how novice admirals in the early Victorian era were obsessed with fire ships and ramming.) Star Wars' popularity in part is due to the way it taps into that mythological narrative and presents it with retro-futuristic aesthetics in a space-opera setting.

Armada combines many prominent tropes of Naval combat throughout history (Greco-Roman ramming, 19th Century ship classifications and gunnery, 19th century ideas of the 'heroic captain' and 'unique flagship', 20th century ship movement and World War 2 naval aviation) to present an idealised, heroic version of how we dreamed naval combat should be since young, which it is why it's so appealing.

Look, we can get into this debate all day long, I could counter your statement with the simple fact that 18th century ships were classified by size because that limited their Armaments as well as their crew size, and even their range from a port of call.

I could then add that today's modern Cruisers and Destroyers are roughly the same size with the same armaments. Thus effectively phasing out a cruiser. Which leads to the point that combining ship roles is how the future is leading towards and eventually carriers will be Cruisers as well as our tech progresses.

I then could counter that even in the Star Wars novels and EU novels, there are clear signs of classifications.

This is all meaningless really though since it is our interpretations and knowledge that is guiding our concepts of this and you are a historian with a vast array of knowledge from 3 centuries plus past and I am a Navy Veteran Intelligence Specialist who specialized in ship identification, classification, with a love of WWI and WWII tactics and naval combat.

I can see why he might -think- it's broken, especially if he had some kind of bad experiences in games with it, but I can't agree. I think someone here said the GSD has a glass jaw and I couldn't agree more. My AF2 has gone heads-up with a GSD twice now, and both times it went the same way: The GSD throws a handful of dice (4-6) that have two blanks each. I Force rerolls (Mon Mothma) where I need to, and Redirect what I can't. Then it's done. Then the AF goes and POUNDS it twice with Advanced Gunnery. The GSD's evades protect it well while it's GETTING to the target, but once its there it really suffers.

My own thoughts are that it's designed to chase down the smaller rebel ships and take them out in one volley (two if you can position your arcs right) so that it doesn't have to weather any return fire. It's sort of like a Vulture or Hyena, hanging back and then swooping in to pick off the sickly Gazelle. OR if you have the right objectives, it's fast enough to contest objectives against those same C90s and Nebs it wants to hunt, while ideally staying away from the objective the AF2 might focus on.

At least for now. Once Wave 2 hits all bets are off.

Late to the party but, when I was first assembling my Armada stuff and looking at all the Imperial named pilots, I actually added them up to see if all could fit into the 100 pt limit. They did, wit room to spare. I thought to myself, "man, that could be OP and would only get worse when 400 pts roll around." Good thing I'm not a cheese player.

If there is some powerful combo, there will be three groups.

1. It is overpowered, I hate this game because of this meta

2. It is not overpowered, you just need to counter with this....

3. Meh

With regards to 2, I know I like to follow that mind set. I was always taught that if you are doing something that works you keep doing it and if your opponent is hitting you (fencing) then it is you that have to change what you do.

I would go so far as suggesting that your statement for me would be "It's not overpowered, you just need to try something else to counter it, I'll get back to you when I figure out what that is."