Multiple posts in this thread are talking about that. Including the first that specifically details the posters want of an ability to land, repair, and relaunch Squadrons as a way to keep them intact. Perhaps you have not actually read this thread?

And again, even the concept of just launching fighters while in the middle of combat is not something supported by the source material. It is so rarely depicted because when it is depicted it is known as being reckless and suicidal.

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.

It seems like the kind of impractical hidden information FFG has avoided so far.

Such a mechanic sounds clunky and not useful anyway. If fighters need help they need something a lot different from this.

"realistically", it would take up to 30 minutes to rearm and turn a fighter around. Doing it mid battle risks refuelling accidents, rearming accidents as well as an unlucky strike hitting the launch bay at the crucial moment, which is not a happy situation for any carrier with all those fuel lines and munitions stacked up....

Having said that, I can imagine an upgrade card, maybe with the large ships, that says on a squadron command rather than moving and or shooting you can recover squadron hull points equal to your squadron value.

The station right now repairs fighters BTW

I don't think they even figured that into the point values of the squadrons, whether or not they have hyper drives. Otherwise Hyperspace assault would allow you to use just squadrons, and not a ship

Just a question but what will you expect that making the extra detail within the game bring?

Perhaps I am being daft but repairing squadrons and returning them to battle has to have some cost. So a launch requires a command as does repairs, there may also be a limit to what can launch or land in a turn so these commands are taking multiple commands in a 6 turn game. Carriers also tend to be held back behind the fighting ships. So if you are looking at the rules inclusing what will it bring that makes it worthwhile as a tactical challenge to include?

Just a question but what will you expect that making the extra detail within the game bring?

Perhaps I am being daft but repairing squadrons and returning them to battle has to have some cost. So a launch requires a command as does repairs, there may also be a limit to what can launch or land in a turn so these commands are taking multiple commands in a 6 turn game. Carriers also tend to be held back behind the fighting ships. So if you are looking at the rules inclusing what will it bring that makes it worthwhile as a tactical challenge to include?

The usual responses that I've seen have been along the lines of:

1. Ferry the fighters in close, so they can attack before being killed

2. For reasons of surprise.

3. Repair and reload the fighters, usually much faster than reality (because, hand wave)

All would seem to invite destruction of both the carrier and fighters, which just doesn't seem to be worth the risk. Surprise would be negated because your and your opponent's lists are public knowledge.

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

Why? Wouldn't I want to respond to my opponents fleet and choices?

If I put Squadrons in a ship does that count and a deployment?

Can I put one Squadron on board and anther in a ship during deployment and count as a pair of squadrons?

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.

Wouldn't the rules as they are imply that the squadrons were activated to launch?

I would suggest that the squadrons may launch at distance 1 of the ship that is activating them and not within 1 of an enemy ship. Then you move their activation slider and it is all they get to do.

Historically a carrier with planed that are armed and full of fuel any damage done to the flight deck would be a major problem. Perhaps in order to have squadrons perpared and ready to launch the ship with the squadrons on board will take double the number of internals? Further as the squadron(s) are now flying through the ships shields there is a risk of being hit during the brief period that the shields allow the squadron to pass through. Perhaps this could be refected by allowing an extra dice into the shooting players pool or perhaps one dice for every 2 squadrons passig through (Round up)?

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.

You keep saying "Thematically" but I don't think it means what you thinks it means. In all three original movies I can only recall one instance where a fighter is launched during combat. In Clone Wars we see many instances of fighters being launched, but again in combat it is rare. Squadrons may land in combat as they are low on fuel and have no weapons left, but taking off, you try and get them in the air before combat starts.

In A New Hope we see Darth Vader and two wing men launch during a battle.

In Revenge of the Sith we see Vulture droids launching/taking off.

Or do these not count?

I keep reading that fighters would be in danger upon take off. That would be true of modern fighter craft. This is a fantasy world where star ships have anti gravity or are launched by tractor beams. Also many of the hangers go through the ships or have multiple hangers on different sides so escape is possible. I think surprise launch is a viable tactic in this world. I bet GA Thrawn would use this under the right circumstances. My 2 cents.

You see Vader from the Death Star, not a ship.

You see Vulture Droids jumping off the hull of the ship.

You don't see the difference between those and launching full Squadrons from the Hanger of a Ship?

I keep reading that fighters would be in danger upon take off. That would be true of modern fighter craft. This is a fantasy world where star ships have anti gravity or are launched by tractor beams. Also many of the hangers go through the ships or have multiple hangers on different sides so escape is possible. I think surprise launch is a viable tactic in this world. I bet GA Thrawn would use this under the right circumstances. My 2 cents.

You are also talking about science fiction in which the technology behaves in a manner more akin to WW2 Naval Vessels then actual space craft.

You see Vader from the Death Star, not a ship.

Yes but they're still launching from a hanger. The Death Star is more than a space station, it has hyper drive and can travel from star system to star system so it maybe as large as a space station but it functions as a space ship.

It's also 120km around. Slightly larger then say a VSD or a Neb B. By what a magnitude of 100+

And not under direct fire from other capital ships either.

But it did have squadrons of fighters buzzing around it that could have picked off any fighters launching from hanger bays. It was still in combat and firing it's large scale defences trying to defend itself while preparing to attack a planet.

I see no reason why ships can't launch fighters but Armada is what Armada is and I'm playing it because I like it.

If people want to play a game where we can launch fighters mid battle then we'll have to find a different game.

1- Aircraft are most vulnerable to enemy fire while taking off or landing.
2- The Battle of Midway

Now add a little space through which you have to launch and recover your fighters - a space that is easy for the enemy to concentrate all their firepower: Anti-fighter missiles and lasers to destroy the launching/recovering starfighters and anti-capital ship torpedoes, bombs, and turbolasers to punch through the giant hole you just exposed in your shields and armor (destroying any fuel and munitions stored nearby which might cause catastrophic damage to your ship - to say nothing of the fact that your hangar will be razed and unable to be used to recover any fighters still in flight, necessitating the fighters being abandoned in space).

(In universe, I can't remember how many fighters I destroyed in X-Wing versus TIE Fighter while they were being launched off enemy frigates - or how many times I suffered a crap load of damage launching off a frigate before I could even maneuver. I definitely died a few times before I really got started while flying TIEs.)

Also: The Death Star was a large planetoid with incredibly powerful shields and plenty of hangars nowhere near the attacking rebel ships.

Another aspect people seem to be overlooking is, what effect would this have on orders? My only conclusion is, nothing positive.

Unless launching/recovering/re– arming fighters is a free order, putting this sort of thing in the game will make a mess of the mechanics. Here is why I think so:

If Imperials are forced to ferry in their squadrons, then they will be forced to launch them — let's assume a Squadron order is required. What this means is, every Imperial player will open the game with a Squadron command planned — why wouldn't they? They paid a lot of points for their squadrons and want to use them, so they'll be forced to launch them, taking up an order. And if it isn't the first order planned, it will certainly be the second. And every Rebel player will know this. This effectively locks Imperial players into taking actions that are unavoidable and easily foreseen by their opponents. This is absolutely no good.

What is the point of forcing players to pay for their squadrons and then forcing them to plan to deploy them with squadron orders? That's the game system making decisions for the players, and locking them into a course of action they might not agree with, but won't be able to change. And to make it even worse, Rebel players won't be tied down by this because their squadrons have hyperdrives and so don't need to be based. Consider this example. You are sitting across from a player with a Victory– class Star Destroyer who also has brought Howlrunner and two TIE Fighters. I bet you will be able to guess, with a fair amount of accuracy, what that player will plan for their opening stack of orders — and that's not good for the game.

If Star Destroyers are only allowed to carry as many squadrons as their Squadron value then this becomes a huge headache for Imperial players. From the basic math I've done in my head, it is impossible for an Imperial player to field enough capital ships that have enough squadron capacity to actually carry the amount of squadrons the game says they can bring to the battle. In a soon– to– be– standard fleet size of 400 points, players are allowed to bring 133 points of squadrons. That's 16 TIE– Fighter squadrons that this suggested game mechanic would prevent an Imperial player from taking, because there is no way Imperials could field that much squadron capacity. What this will do is allow Rebel players to bring their full and entire complement of squadron points, but it will force Imperial players to either cut back on their plans because they don't have enough basing capacity, or it will force them to bring higher point costed units that they may not want.

All this to give the very slight flavor of being an actual carrier? Imperial players are forced to use squadron orders to launch their fighters when Rebel players aren't, Imperial players very likely will not be able to bring their full complement of squadron points because they cannot base them all yet Rebel players will, and the opponents of Imperial players will see this coming a mile away. I do not see this adding anything positive, interesting — or more importantly, fun — to the game. But it will add a considerable burden to only one side of the fight, and that in itself is all the reason we need to be thankful this is not part of Armada.

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.

I would absolutely agree that you can't repair a fighter squadron in one turn of Armada. But the Station obstacle says otherwise...

I'm fairly new to Armada but I like the idea of launching fighters from ships in combat. I'm not so keen on them redocking and repairing. The purpose would be for a capital ship to enable fighters to be delivered to a strategic position which otherwise might not be possible. The risk is that if you lose the ship you lose the fighters without having made any use of those points spent on them. As a previous poster suggested this could be simply accomplished without changing or requiring any additions to game mechanics. A squadron command activates fighters, launching them from the ship they are housed on. Of course it would have to be a house rule but I'd love to see it tested.

As for the absurd postings about the challenges of launching fighters from a capital ship in space which are based on video game experiences or the application of planet-bound craft dealing with such things as gravity, minimum air speeds, etc this would be no challenge at all. Fighters could launch in a second and be at full speed and maneuverability just as quickly. If the carrier ship was taking enemy fire they could simply roll, pitch or yaw hangar bays away from the direction of that fire leaving an enemy with zero opportunity to concentrate fire on launching fighters. So unless you have swarms of enemies on every side and axis launching wouldn't pose a problem.

As for the absurd postings about the challenges of launching fighters from a capital ship in space which are based on video game experiences or the application of planet-bound craft dealing with such things as gravity, minimum air speeds, etc this would be no challenge at all. Fighters could launch in a second and be at full speed and maneuverability just as quickly. If the carrier ship was taking enemy fire they could simply roll, pitch or yaw hangar bays away from the direction of that fire leaving an enemy with zero opportunity to concentrate fire on launching fighters. So unless you have swarms of enemies on every side and axis launching wouldn't pose a problem.

Is it that simple? The ships alreay have yaw and some of them take many turns to come about. A Star Destroyer needs multiple Maneuver Commands and half the game to come about. As for introducing Roll and Pitch what are your suggestions?

And take care using words like "Absurd" and aiming them at other people. I respect your opinion, what I want to understand from you is how does making these complications improve the game? If you want a more "realistic" game then go right ahead and make it more realistic, but to many of us who have a different opinion to yours, we just don't see the overwhelming desire to complicate something that really doesn't benefit for that complication.

Work with the physics you see in the movies those big ships aren't dashing and darting about, they are slow, ponderous and clumsy.

1- Aircraft are most vulnerable to enemy fire while taking off or landing.

2- The Battle of Midway

Now add a little space through which you have to launch and recover your fighters - a space that is easy for the enemy to concentrate all their firepower: Anti-fighter missiles and lasers to destroy the launching/recovering starfighters and anti-capital ship torpedoes, bombs, and turbolasers to punch through the giant hole you just exposed in your shields and armor (destroying any fuel and munitions stored nearby which might cause catastrophic damage to your ship - to say nothing of the fact that your hangar will be razed and unable to be used to recover any fighters still in flight, necessitating the fighters being abandoned in space).

(In universe, I can't remember how many fighters I destroyed in X-Wing versus TIE Fighter while they were being launched off enemy frigates - or how many times I suffered a crap load of damage launching off a frigate before I could even maneuver. I definitely died a few times before I really got started while flying TIEs.)

Also: The Death Star was a large planetoid with incredibly powerful shields and plenty of hangars nowhere near the attacking rebel ships.

Comparing Aircraft on open carriers on the sea with space fighters from closed and shielded(!) ships in Space doesnt actually work.

I was never, shoot down while leaving the hangar in TIE-Fighter+ games, so perhaps its not a general thing to do. And even further nobody demands launching the fighters when enemies are already in range.

To start some of your squadrons off the board to be deployed later is entirely optional. It would give additional tactical choices at the risk of losing the opportunity to use them effectively.

You can still have as many starfighters as the points limit dictates. You just don't need to have them out all at once.

The only thing that really makes be strike my beard is allowing more fighters than your combined squadron values can accommodate. So if you had three corvettes or something each with a SQD of 1, you'd only be able to field 3 squadrons. It would make the squadron value that much more important, imo, because then you could have 'carrier' ships that have a more specialise purpose - allowing you to field more squadrons without forking out for the big ships.

(Which I supposed they can do anyway, but w/e).

For Rebels it's less of an issue of course because they all hyperspace in, but for the Imperials, apart from the Advanced, they're dependant on a carrier so surely those squadron values mean more. If you have a VSD with, what, 4? and yet you've got 8 fighters on the board, none of them Advanced, how did they get there? WHERE DID THEY COME FROM!?

Abstraction for the Abstraction Gods!

If I'm not mistaken, ships don't drop into the war zone straight from hyperspace but from some distance away. You can imagine them to be scouts or patrollers that have just returned to the fleet to join it in battle.

As for the absurd postings about the challenges of launching fighters from a capital ship in space which are based on video game experiences or the application of planet-bound craft dealing with such things as gravity, minimum air speeds, etc this would be no challenge at all. Fighters could launch in a second and be at full speed and maneuverability just as quickly. If the carrier ship was taking enemy fire they could simply roll, pitch or yaw hangar bays away from the direction of that fire leaving an enemy with zero opportunity to concentrate fire on launching fighters. So unless you have swarms of enemies on every side and axis launching wouldn't pose a problem.

Is it that simple? The ships alreay have yaw and some of them take many turns to come about. A Star Destroyer needs multiple Maneuver Commands and half the game to come about. As for introducing Roll and Pitch what are your suggestions?

And take care using words like "Absurd" and aiming them at other people. I respect your opinion, what I want to understand from you is how does making these complications improve the game? If you want a more "realistic" game then go right ahead and make it more realistic, but to many of us who have a different opinion to yours, we just don't see the overwhelming desire to complicate something that really doesn't benefit for that complication.

Work with the physics you see in the movies those big ships aren't dashing and darting about, they are slow, ponderous and clumsy.

I'm not suggesting that the other dimensions of flight be added into the game only that if you had a ship with hangar bays and you were taking heavy fire from an enemy capital ship on the starboard side and you wanted to launch fighters it would be easy to simply launch them from the port side or roll the ship so that the bay's would be where the dorsal side of the ship was. It doesn't require dashing and darting maneuvering. It doesn't even require a change of game mechanics. The discussion I engaged was about if launching fighters into space from a capital ship and if that is practical. For the reasons I've listed I believe it is. I can give practical examples for nearly any scenario of a capital ship wanting/needing to launch fighters into space and how that could be accomplished with minimum effort or risk. I apologize if absurd was too harsh a word and I offended someone.