Some people might think this is not needed but why is there no use of the docking bay or carrying capacity for squadrons? Right now squadrons don't have any damage mitigation so they go pretty fast. I figured they could have used squadron points to dock launch and repair squadron much like engineering points.

Either way just another thing in Armada that I think has been missed.

Gallant Haven, Aces...

I'd like to see something with launching fighters mid-game as well, but I think it was done that way for balance purposes. The squadrons are really more like a salad that comes with the full meal that is Armada, so they don't have as much attention. Also launching B-Wings from the mid point would be horrifying.

I would like to put B-Wings on my Gallant Haven at Speed 3, launch them on Turn 2 Activate them Adar, maybe throw in a Yavaris double tap and profit.

My buddy would probably throw his Victory at me, I would duck, and it would be permanently stuck in the drywall at our LGS.

Well, mid-flight deployments would certainly be a pretty big deal. However, wouldn't most armed fleets immediately deploy their fighters with all speed once an enemy fleet is approaching at close range? Not all ships can simultaneously launch all their possible fighters I assume. Anyway, no need to bother with specifics we can't really validate I suppose. I do think repairs during a battle are largely impractical, but that's more of the same. What I really wanted to say was that they probably work this in really easily with some new scenario cards. Example, player with initiative plays normally but player two only deploys half of his or her squadrons. The rest can be deployed after turn 3 within distance 1-2 of predetermined/marked ship, etc. Just an easier way to work it in when we've already lost the chance (for better or worse) to have it in the rules.

The old WotC game employed this rule and it was a mistake. If your carrier was destroyed before you launched all your fighters, you wasted a lot of points that never came into play.

There were other more significant problems with that game, but it was still a detrimental element that FFG smartly avoided.

it's got nothing to do with balance and no it's not needed

Armada has been stated from the onset to be focused on capital ships. Squadrons are a great, efficient, and clutter-free (apart from picking the buggers up to change their hull value on the dial ) part of the game that don't eat away at time.

FFg has done an amazing job making squadrons important and strategic without making them overly complicated and fiddly bastards that just drag the game down

For my custom scenarios, I like to start Imperial fighters aboard their parent ship with a Fighter-Squadron command needed to launch them (so a Victory can launch 3 stands with one command). I guess I just like the cinematic feel of a Star Destroyer spewing forth its deadly force of TIEs. If the Empire is the defender it can have a few stands on sentry duty. I generally play on a slightly larger game area so there is more time for Imperial fighter deployment.

I don't apply this option to Rebel fighters as they are generally hyperspace capable and can jump-in alongside their capital ships. This of course can be varied for scenarios (e.g. an ambushed Rebel flotilla that has the bulk of its fighters on-board to conserve fuel) or if non-hyperspace capable Alliance fighters like Z-95s appear in future.

I suppose a squardron command or token could be used to recover a damaged fighter-stand (to preserve valuable units and denie the enemy victory points)...but I haven't tried this myself.

I can understand why the official game omits the concept, as it keeps things simple and might disadvantage the Empire (but there's nothing wrong with that in my Rebel book

A lot of people are missing it, some of them open a topic about it once very few weeks, others like that its not included.

Some suggestions can be found here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/19441080#19441080

The old WotC game employed this rule and it was a mistake. If your carrier was destroyed before you launched all your fighters, you wasted a lot of points that never came into play.

You mean like a real tactical choice/element?

I dont think repairing fighters during combat is wise or tactical. Refuel and rearm is one thing, with a trained crew that would take only a few minutes. But if you recall fighters to fix them up, any damage that would only take a few minutes to fix isnt going to impede their tactical ability, so nk point to take them out of battle. The more severe damage would take hours, and not something you want to do in combat. The best way to make time to fix your stuff is to end the battle.

Why should it be in the game? This isn't something ever depicted in any of the source material.

because you can detect opposing ships far in advance of getting into range of firing.

Very rarely do you have to scramble fighters, and most of the time if you do, they are using them nothing more then a fighter screen so the ship can get away.

It is a mechanic that is cumbersome, slows the game down, takes away from gameplay, and really only gives Rebels a better advantage. it is not needed

Why should it be in the game? This isn't something ever depicted in any of the source material.

As a matter of fact it is, on occasion. It's the core of a Marg Sabl, a naval combat maneuver. Whenever it comes up, though, it's something that's pretty explicitly depicted as dangerous and foolhardy. It tends to result in the catastrophic loss of both the ship and her complement before they can deploy, which is pretty true to the real-life events that were the inspiration for Star Wars space combat as well.

A lot of people are missing it, some of them open a topic about it once very few weeks, others like that its not included.

Some suggestions can be found here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/19441080#19441080

The old WotC game employed this rule and it was a mistake. If your carrier was destroyed before you launched all your fighters, you wasted a lot of points that never came into play.

You mean like a real tactical choice/element?

you mean like the game doesn't have enough of those already ?

honestly, the only fighter deployment this game needs occurs exactly when it has to: before the game begins.

squadrons do have to deploy within distance 2 of a cap ship after all

squadrons do have to deploy within distance 2 of a cap ship after all

...but probably not worth the hassle.

The designers discussed this in an interview with the d6 Generation podcast.

Basically it was that when they looked at other games that included fighter launching and landing, that the game only lasted long enough for one launch and land. It was rare that you actually had enough time in the the game to launch, drop ordinance, land, then launch again and drop ordinance.

So they decided to just skip all that and not worry about it.

It's like writing a story. Get in late, get out early. The game starts after the fighters are launched, and ends before they can land again.

Why should it be in the game? This isn't something ever depicted in any of the source material.

Not sure if serious....

Well technically in the ot we never see ties fly out of ships. They just sorta apparate

Pick up your view scanners, herevthey come!

There's too many!

So the fact that they just pop into being distance 2 away from a destroyer is quite true to the ot

I am completely serious. Outside of the one cornercase and extremely risky tactic noted by another poster fleet combat in Star Wars does not include instances of ship's launching mid-combat. Especially not of them launching, landing, rearming, and launching again.

Despite the fact that starfighter combat in Star Wars is based off of depictions of WW2 combat, fleet combat isn't modeled nearly as closely to that material. Carriers aren't just carriers, they are also battleships. Fleet engagements happen with fleets directly engaging each other, not launching squadrons in the hope of finding the enemy fleet. As such it doesn't make sense to have a mechanic for landing, rearming, and launching Squadrons.

It seems like the last one to deploy fighters would lose. If you try to launch 72 ties out of a restricted opening, they would be shreaded. All you have to do is aim in that general direction and you would hit something. Then they need to form up and get oriented to their objective, and to do what while under fire/engaged is, well, pretty foolish. All in all, bad idea to hold in the bombers "till the last moment", it sounds good on paper, but when thinking about it you see some holes.

There was one case in the EU where a Fleet Carrier was destroyed with all fighters on board because A: They were suffering malfunction in the pre-launch checks and B: The Carrier commander wanted to hold them back until there was a weakness for them to exploit.

And the Imperial Escort Carrier was developed in response to a battle where an Imperial fleet was devastated by Y-Wings because the Y-Wings managed to close to combat range before the Imperial fleet could deploy fighters.

Guess they placed that squadron command a little too far down in the command stack.

It is assumed that all decisions for starfighter deployments have been already made by the time round one starts.

However, the thematic appeal for this is great enough to deserve some house rule playtesting. We are currently trying out the following mechanics:

1. Squadrons may be placed on the ship cards that carry them at the start of the game. Each of these ships can carry a number of squadrons up to its squadron value. Other squadrons are placed per setup rules as normal.

2. Instead of ordering squadrons to move and attack, an activate squadron command from the dial can be used to scramble up to a number of squadrons equal to its squadron command. Place these squadrons beside with their bases attached to their carrier ships. An activate squadron token deploys one squadron.

3. Squadrons deployed this way can't move nor attack during the ship phase. They may, however, move or attack during the squadron phase.

4. When a ship is destroyed, all undeployed squadrons are destroyed.

The idea is to be able to protect and tactically deploy these squadrons at the risk of not being able to deploy them at all since your ships would still need to navigate, etc. not to mention it might be destroyed early on.

This would certainly convey advantages to squadrons you would want to protect such as bombers. On the other hand, I imagine that this would also enable you to set up a well-timed fighter screen in response to incoming enemy squadrons.

It might significantly cut down the effectiveness of escorts, however. Still, this just feels thematically cool.

I commented on this in another thread but I think it would be an interesting tactic to hold off deploying all fighters for a round or two...then deploy bombers after passing through a picket line...it's a gamble and a captain would need to have some cajones to pull it off. It of course would need to have so some powerful antI cap bombers to threaten the other ships. I'll probably try it as a house rule to see how it works out.

I am completely serious. Outside of the one cornercase and extremely risky tactic noted by another poster fleet combat in Star Wars does not include instances of ship's launching mid-combat. Especially not of them launching, landing, rearming, and launching again.

Despite the fact that starfighter combat in Star Wars is based off of depictions of WW2 combat, fleet combat isn't modeled nearly as closely to that material. Carriers aren't just carriers, they are also battleships. Fleet engagements happen with fleets directly engaging each other, not launching squadrons in the hope of finding the enemy fleet. As such it doesn't make sense to have a mechanic for landing, rearming, and launching Squadrons.

Nobody is talking about that. Just about the possibility to hold back some fighters and deploy them later.

It seems like the last one to deploy fighters would lose. If you try to launch 72 ties out of a restricted opening, they would be shreaded. All you have to do is aim in that general direction and you would hit something. Then they need to form up and get oriented to their objective, and to do what while under fire/engaged is, well, pretty foolish. All in all, bad idea to hold in the bombers "till the last moment", it sounds good on paper, but when thinking about it you see some holes.

I guess nobody would want to launch all TIEs later. But keeping back some Fighters or Bombers, if even only to fool the enemy seems ... like a real world tactical decision.