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!

I don't think the OP was suggesting that the squadron value of the ship cap you total number of squadrons possible only the number that the individual ship could carry. You could still have squadrons not on ships up to the max value allowed.

So is it 3 or 4 stands that make up a single squadron?

So is it 3 or 4 stands that make up a single squadron?

Seriously, let it go.

So is it 3 or 4 stands that make up a single squadron?

Actually, each plastic fighter represents -i² to π^½ squadrons. Which means each chandelier represents a multitude of squadrons. And each stand is therefore a multitude of a multitude of squadrons. It's squadception!

Try not to think about this too hard, or down the rabbit hole you'll go and you'll have no one to blame for that but yourself. Besides, I think the real question should be, how many squadrons does it take to make a flight?

I like to think of squadrons like Schrödinger's cat.

Yes a squadron represents fighters but you have to open the box to fnd put how many fighters and then it maybe too late.

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...

And how long is each turn? 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 minutes, 30 minutes? If it is 30 minutes or more what repairs could you get done in that time?

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...

And how long is each turn? 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 minutes, 30 minutes? If it is 30 minutes or more what repairs could you get done in that time?

A diagnostic of what you need to fix.

I think the station just replenishes the numbers.

I like to think of squadrons like Schrödinger's cat.

Yes a squadron represents fighters but you have to open the box to fnd put how many fighters and then it maybe too late.

It's not a "we won't know until we look" thing, it would be more like "until we measure the enemy squadrons they simultaneously have all squadrons and no squadrons."

Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica both focus heavily on scrambling fighters, launch tubes etc. For these IPs it is a real theme of their space combat.

Star Wars never really focused on these aspects.

So in my mind its not a theme the game needs to cover to be Star Wars.

#2pence

yea interesting. might try around with some house rules. maybe.:

- you can place twice your squadron value worth of squadrons onboard each ship at the beginning of the game. you have to determine and tell which squadron is placed on which ship by placeing them on the respective ship card the moment you would normaly have to place that squadron on the table.

- as an alternative or complementary squadron dial or token command you may for each point of squadron value launch one squadron instead of the normal move and attack option.

- during the execution of the squadron command you may distribute your squadron value between launching action and normal move and attack action in any combination.

- if the carriing ship is destroyed all squadrons still on board are destroyed as well.

- Variant A: squadrons launching may move up to speed 1 measured from the base of the launching ship. however, they may not attack during this activation.

- Variant B: squadrons launching may move up to theire speed measured from the base of the launching ship. however, they may not attack during this activation.

same could be done for landing. squadron command required. only move no attack in that activation.

just some ideas , might try that out . i think the launch option should not enable you to saveguard your bombers or b-wings close in without any fear to get shot down by fighters. thus only move and no shooting and only for a squadron command so that the enemy has chance to react.

maybe add an option for the enemy ships and fighters to fire once (total over all ships and squadrons) at each launching squadron with theire respective anti squadron armament if they are in range of the launching ship.

I like to think of squadrons like Schrödinger's cat.

Yes a squadron represents fighters but you have to open the box to fnd put how many fighters and then it maybe too late.

I'm sorry, but how is that like Schrödingers Katze at all? He created that thought experiment to mock the quantum theory of particles existing in a superposition of two states.

It's not a "we won't know until we look" thing, it would be more like "until we measure the enemy squadrons they simultaneously have all squadrons and no squadrons."

Yes I know that but that's not how The Big Bang Theory explained it.

I guess what I was trying to say is that the squadrons represent fighters, how many? I dont really care as long as they represent the correct type of fighter.

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.

This exact thing happens in one of the episodes of The Clone Wars. Annakin approaches the enemy bottom first so he can launch bombers a close range. This was one of those Venators (IIRC) where the fighter bay is on the top (dorsal) side.

Scrambling fighters during capital ship combat occurs all the time in The Clone Wars. We never see a Star Destroyer fire its main guns in the movies but Armada includes those.

Pretty sure Episode 4 starts with just that...

yea interesting. might try around with some house rules. maybe.:

- you can place twice your squadron value worth of squadrons onboard each ship at the beginning of the game. you have to determine and tell which squadron is placed on which ship by placeing them on the respective ship card the moment you would normaly have to place that squadron on the table.

- as an alternative or complementary squadron dial or token command you may for each point of squadron value launch one squadron instead of the normal move and attack option.

- during the execution of the squadron command you may distribute your squadron value between launching action and normal move and attack action in any combination.

- if the carriing ship is destroyed all squadrons still on board are destroyed as well.

- Variant A: squadrons launching may move up to speed 1 measured from the base of the launching ship. however, they may not attack during this activation.

- Variant B: squadrons launching may move up to theire speed measured from the base of the launching ship. however, they may not attack during this activation.

same could be done for landing. squadron command required. only move no attack in that activation.

just some ideas , might try that out . i think the launch option should not enable you to saveguard your bombers or b-wings close in without any fear to get shot down by fighters. thus only move and no shooting and only for a squadron command so that the enemy has chance to react.

maybe add an option for the enemy ships and fighters to fire once (total over all ships and squadrons) at each launching squadron with theire respective anti squadron armament if they are in range of the launching ship.

I like this but I was thinking why don't we just launch fighters in the Squadron phase?

It's KISS and the fighters can only move, not fire.

You don't/can't use a squadron command.

Also the GSD/VSD/ISD wont want to leave it too long before it's surrounded by Reb fighters.

and they could be recovered in the Squadron phase.

Pretty sure Episode 4 starts with just that...

In that scene, the Star Destroyer is firing it's small guns from the bottom of the ship, not the big turrets on the top.

I'm afraid you're not going to change my opinion on how I see a Star Wars themed game...

I'm afraid you're not going to change my opinion on how I see a Star Wars themed game...

I am afraid that this topic and his posts doest orbit around the bright burning star that you belive to be your opinion alone.

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...

And how long is each turn? 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 minutes, 30 minutes? If it is 30 minutes or more what repairs could you get done in that time?

A diagnostic of what you need to fix.

I think the station just replenishes the numbers.

Well that could more easily be done by a friendly ship... Because what would be the odds that a Station has some spare A-Wings and Tie Bombers standing around?

Just sat down and read the entire thread. Here are my thoughts as I process all of this.

First, there are good points on both sides of the debate regarding how risky/viable or thematically appropriate it would be to launch fighters mid-engagement. So let’s just say it it’s “thematically questionable” and leave it at that. For me, this then raises the following questions:

Would having such rules significantly disrupt the existing game balance?

Would the benefits to having such rules outweigh the added rule complexity?

The first question would obviously require some testing, but most suggested rules I have seen involve some use of the squadron command. Introducing alternative uses to any of the ship commands could certainly alter game balance, but again, requires testing.

As to the second question, there are only a handful of arguments for or cases in which it would make sense to introduce launching/recovering fighters in Armada.

Tactical deployments, such as timed bomber launches – There could be some benefit to this, though thematically it might be more applicable to the Rebels. However, it is a tactic that could probably be adjusted for relatively easily, depending on the specifics of the rules. If this is the only reason to include launch mechanics, I tend to think it is more trouble than it is worth. However, this could be introduced through the use of unique ship cards or commanders.

Repair/rearm/refuel – Rearming or refueling would require the addition of additional rules. Repair is questionable, as at the Armada scale damage to a squadron is probably more akin to losing a fighter than simply having one damaged. Most proposed rules for this require 1-3 turns to reap any benefits. In a 6-turn game where the first turn is primarily spent getting into range of your opponent, I just don’t see enough benefit to go to the trouble.

Ambush scenarios – A scenario in which a fleet is taken by surprise and takes time to launch its fighters could be interesting. However, given the distance at which ships seem capable of detecting one another and the distance from other objects at which they drop out of hyperspace, this would probably only occur if the enemy were cloaked or concealed in an asteroid field or on a planet. So including standing mechanics for this might also require mechanics for stealth. Rather than embrace the added complexity of such rules, it is probably easier to address this through the use of specific scenario or objective cards, rather than a standing rules.

Transporting Squadrons to/from Battles – The remaining case only applies if your battle is part of a larger campaign or galactic strategy system in which ships and squadrons can carry over from one battle to the next. Prime examples might be a fleeing ship that needs to get its fighters on board before it jumps into hyperspace or ships being stranded because their carrier was destroyed. There could certainly be some benefit to including launch/recovery rules in a campaign setting, and at that point you’re probably not overly concerned with the added complexity.

TL;DR version

Simplest approach – Stick with the existing rules that assume you launch squadrons just prior to start of first turn.

Tactical Deployments – If you want to use tactical deployments, introduce it using a unique ship or commander that’s skilled (or crazy enough) to pull it off.

Mid-Battle Repair/rearm/refuel – Not worth the effort to include rules for this in a 6-turn game.

Ambush Scenarios – If you want to play out a scenario in which one fleet is surprised and takes time to launch their squadrons, do it with an Objective card or some sort of specific scenario setup. Keep it simple, such as “Imperial squadrons may only be deployed during the Status phase of turn 3. They must be deployed activated and placed within distance 1 of a friendly ship.”

Transporting Squadrons to/from Battle – Only relevant if you’re playing a larger campaign, in which case you can get as complex as you like.

One final thought on how to add just a hint of “carrier feel”: While this is somewhat addressed by the current restriction on spending more than 1/3 of fleet points on squadrons, I do like the idea of limiting the total number of squadrons based on the squadron values of the ships in the fleet. You could also require that those squadrons have to start the game within distance 1-2 of a ship capable of supporting them (based on its squadron value).

It would be too slow and too complicated, ridding us of this nice tight 6turn limit game. Look at dystopian wars to see how difficult and annoying it could have been!

Well this debate was surprisingly long. As for most of us we know that it is too late to put anything into action for say a carrier mechanic in Star Wars armada. I expected a bit of opposition to the concept but not for the reason proposed.

Reading the replies I see 2 reason why opposed to the mechanic.

1. Thematic Reasons (most popular)
2. Game play mechanic reasons (the one I expected and didn't get much)

So the biggest argument against is thematic reasons, as in it is not tactically viable, or it wouldn't work in real life. It is kind of odd as well we all know Star Wars is fantasy and while the combat was based off of real life battles those were WW2 battles that now have obsolete tactics and equipment. As for mid battle repairs well the astromech droids on the X-wings were capable of doing field repairs so a hanger full of droids I would consider would be able to do repairs on a star fighter in mid action. IT is also true that tactically you want to attack with your forces already in their order of battle and not in the middle of forming ranks. But that doesn't mean there could not be say a scramble mechanic where caught with little warning to launch as much fighters as possible that were ready in reserves. So for the Thematic reasons I find that those arguments hold NO weight.

Now game play mechanics I think is the biggest thing to consider. Now I read that there was an experiment with an early build to have squadrons reload their payloads so sort of a discardable munitions mechanic. But looking at X-wing and seeing how terrible discardable weapons performed it is easy to see why they focused all on dice values and giving squadrons a separate anti ship value instead of say missile counters which would only add clutter. Thus the need to have a resupply mechanic in the game was completely removed. Now the concern with being able to deploy ships it can be difficult especially when the board gets crowded and didn't work that well with similar (mechanically, not thematically) games. I think the biggest point is the 6 turn limit (IMHO is a big flaw, they should have done a random turn ending with possibility of ending at turn 6 but could go up to 8 turns before ending).

The station right now repairs fighters BTW

And that is what sort of bothers me. Tying such a valuable asset to the terrain that doesn't count to squad building can lead to unfair advantages with no ways to compensate for them. Now having the new x-wing terrain system wont work because then you would see both sides carrying a space station with them as they go (which will break for thematic reasons).

However someone did bring a point that the objectives can be used to sort of soft theme carrier mechanics such as having a scramble objective which allows you to launch fighters from a flag ship (with squadron capacity of 2 or more) which acts like a deploy. Still I do agree FFG did drop the ball when they left out a hyperdrive mechanic for ships that do have them allowing them to deploy away from capital ships. They should have included that on the rebel ships. It would have made TIE fighter screens all the more important.

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.

I did a similar move in my first game of space marine (epic) with a Capitol imperialis and a unit of predators, my pals face was a picture. So that'll be game over then, 24 yrs later I can still see them disgorging down the rear ramp, but for the life of me I couldn't tell you what I did last week.

This concept is much more viable if the 6 turn limit is ignored. It especially restricts any repair concept. I can further see an issue with simply caching damaged fighters on board a ship to preserve the points and not have them destroyed. Of course this only applies to a timed game.

I really like the idea. I think keeping it as simple possible is the best way to implement this idea as a house rule.

1. Ship can hold fighters equal to squadron value or less.

2. Using fighters onboard a ship follows the same rules as fighters in play except when they launch they are limited to movement of 1.

3. If a ship is destroyed all on board fighters are destroyed as well.

Optional- Fighters may re-board ships by overlapping their entire base (only in squadron phase) onto a ships base. Ships may repair on-board fighters 1 hull each with a Repair command or half of the ships Squadron values worth of fighters with a Repair token. [Probably best used in untimed games]

This concept is much more viable if the 6 turn limit is ignored. It especially restricts any repair concept. I can further see an issue with simply caching damaged fighters on board a ship to preserve the points and not have them destroyed. Of course this only applies to a timed game.

I really like the idea. I think keeping it as simple possible is the best way to implement this idea as a house rule.

1. Ship can hold fighters equal to squadron value or less.

2. Using fighters onboard a ship follows the same rules as fighters in play except when they launch they are limited to movement of 1.

3. If a ship is destroyed all on board fighters are destroyed as well.

Optional- Fighters may re-board ships by overlapping their entire base (only in squadron phase) onto a ships base. Ships may repair on-board fighters 1 hull each with a Repair command or half of the ships Squadron values worth of fighters with a Repair token. [Probably best used in untimed games]

There are some ships with a squadron value even though they don't hold ships really. The CR-90 has 1 squadron value. I think if they were to implement squadrons it would take something like engineering points. Such as 2 points to launch, 1 point to direct (move & attack like current system) and 3 points to embark a squadron. And it can carry squadrons up to squadron limit but that way a CR-90 cannot carry any squadrons.