I have been focussing mostly on the rebels so far, with just a hand full of games as the empire. It seems like time to give them some more serious attention.

From the games i have played i have realised that i want everything! Titles, named pilots, more ships, more upgrades.....everything. unfortunately this cant be done yet so this is where i have arrived:

Victory-II (screed)

Gladiator-I (demolisher)

Gladiator-I

5 fighters

3 bombers

Total of 300 points

Objectives - advanced gunnery, contested outpost, recon sweep

Im also tempted by presission strike.....i have bombers and screed so this might work fairly well.

Contested outpost and recon sweep have been chosen to try and force the opponent into certain areas.....where the gladiators will be waiting for them.

What do we think.....its light on juicy upgrades and combos but i like having at least three capitals, and i want a fighter and bomber wing, and really don't have a lot of wiggle room as a result. I don't want to drop the victory to a mk-I without gunnery upgrades of some kind, and at that point it may as well just become mk-II. Demolisher is the one recall splash on upgrades.....its just so handy!....im loathed to say "must take" but its pretty blooming close!

you're going to have to make sacrifices at 300 points, as trying to spread yourself too thin will just leave you limited in every area

of the 3 things you want (3 ships, fighter wing, bombers) I'd suggest picking 2

imo 3 ships + fighter wing should be your goal since your 3 ships are all anti-ship specialists as is (horrible against squadrons). Easily remedied by going 8 fighters and no bombers (+3 points)

to get the most out of skreed, imo you need to enable the gladiators. Dropping down to a VSD - 1 for a pair of engine techs or ACM is probably the way to go.

As FGD said: "fast, cheap, or good...pick two"

You're picking all 3 and you might suffer for it. I go with 2 equipped ships with a full 100 (well, 99) point fighter wing. I played against your ships with no fighters today (Vic2, 2x Glad2s) and it was servicable, but woulda been much weaker if they had had naked Glads with that meager smattering of squadrons.

1vic 2glads can work, but you can get shredded by fighters/bombers..you'll have to avoid Precision Strike and Superior Positions (the latter is what severely cost my opponent with this list) which could force a bad Defensive objective for you (I tend to run Ambush, which is very dangerous with a 3-ship list)

So I'd focus on what you want, 3 ships and then tool out them out to the extreme. Or go for squads and dump a glad for the points.

Does a little of everything leave me limited, or does it provide me with a multitude of options?

I am reluctant to drop the bombers for more fighters. Investing heavily in fighters, with bombers for them to support seems like it is only going to really work if my opponent is bringing squadrons as well......otherwise Imperial squadrons seem like an inefficient use of points if they have nothing to shoot but capitals, or if they are numerous enough to be worth destroying but too weak to put up much of a fight against a true squadron orientated build.

I think maybe dropping one bomber to get some concussion missiles on the demolisher might be worthwhile. This does a tone of damage if I end up being the first player (move last, move first for three volleys against a single tough target before it gets to issue a command)......and if this causes people to be the first player against me then I think the fleet is still flexible enough to play the objective game well (since a double firing vic two is formidable, and either of the others help force the opponent onto the gladiators).

While I like the idea of three bombers being commanded by the victory, a group of two allows any ship in the fleet to command the bomber wing, which should help with command coverage, and takes the pressure of the victory.

Bitharne – I have 67 points in squadrons.......just over two thirds of my max allowance. That's hardly meagre lol

Why do you think ambush is particularly bad for three ship lists? I tend to prefer having over half my force ambushed, then I have an automatic reserve/flank guard built in and it doesn’t leave one ship completely stranded.

I fully agree that superior positions would be terrible against a squadron heavy opponent, I struggle to imagine a fleet and spread of objectives that would make that one the lesser of the available evils.

Investing in a meager fighter force and a meager bomber force is going really going to work if your opponent has no squadrons. otherwise, they're just getting torn apart.

tie fighters still have a 50% chance to inflict one damage. If left completely unmolested (i.e, against zero squadrons) a solid 8 of them are still going to tear ships apart

Investing in a meager fighter force and a meager bomber force is going really going to work if your opponent has no squadrons. otherwise, they're just getting torn apart.

tie fighters still have a 50% chance to inflict one damage. If left completely unmolested (i.e, against zero squadrons) a solid 8 of them are still going to tear ships apart

I tend to play Rebels, but as Empire I've been taking Rhymer for this very reason. Even if he's my only Bomber (and he often is) it means if my TIES and Interceptors don't have fighters to kill they can act like another capital ship, taking mid-range blue dice shots. And if the enemy do bring squadrons of their own then they've got to close on and engage with mine, at 8pts per blue dice a big group of TIEs is no joke for anti-ship capabilities.

To the first point: this is the first table top game...hell potentially game, period...that rewards you for diversification. So, no, taking "a little of everything" doesn't hurt you.

However, the axiom in my first sentence above IS relevant. In your list, you have 3 ships and 5 fighters and 3 bombers, with the ONLY "quality" item you have is the demolisher title...while very good, your ships otherwise are pretty much barebones.

The problem, I feel, with this approach is you're trying to specialize and diversify at the same time...hard convey what I actually mean, but let's look at your fighters:

5 TIEs and 3 Bombers. Against ship-only lists you have a hefty punch, and I won't argue that. But against an opponent with squadrons (often, I'm sure) you only have 3 basic TIEs no screen your bombers that only have range 1 shots. One enemy squadron command has a change of killing most of your TIEs and the second will eliminate all your

Squads from the game. So, the way I see it, your squadrons don't add much to your game. Ryhmer alone might give you some teeth with medium ship range on batteries, but you're still in trouble if you get a single interceptor or two to engage you (speed 5 is scary).

You said you have 67 squadron points of 100 spent...well, you have a double-whamy there in that you aren't spending your full points, while having very generic and General fighters that can't stand up to anything specialized. So two factors work against your investment.

To illustrate: my squadron list has more anti-fighter dedication than ALL of yours AND I have 2 bombers with medium range to threaten ships while you struggle to slow my fighters down. I also have more options to deal with yours: I've ab advanced to force all your shots off my TIEs while they howl+flight control+reroll your few ships dead. I also have two 5 speed ships to make your

Bombers utterly useless eoth their range 1.

As for your ships...the way I look at it lately, is similar to accounting: fixed cost and variable cost. You have a fixed cost for the ship, and let's assign it a usefulness value.

Now if you buy X ships you get Y usefulness. And the fact that the base cost is so high, you have to give up your variable costs (upgrades) to take more.

Now imagine that upgrades are a usefulness multiplayer: if I take my demolisher, with ACM, Wulff, and Engine techs. I could (random values for demonstration purposes) argue each upgrade adds ~15-25% increase in usefulness depending on its cost, and compounds further with surgeries like wulff and engine techs. So my 56 point ship pays 32 points (for an 88 point ship) and I would rate it's usefullness value at AT least double its base cost...meaning for 32 points I've added at least 56 points of valie.

So with ships, with the high buy-in cost, synergies for a fraction of the ship cost will add MUCH more value to your list than a second ship, which then takes away from other aspects of your list.

To the first point: this is the first table top game...hell potentially game, period...that rewards you for diversification. So, no, taking "a little of everything" doesn't hurt you.

However, the axiom in my first sentence above IS relevant. In your list, you have 3 ships and 5 fighters and 3 bombers, with the ONLY "quality" item you have is the demolisher title...while very good, your ships otherwise are pretty much barebones.

The problem, I feel, with this approach is you're trying to specialize and diversify at the same time...hard convey what I actually mean, but let's look at your fighters:

5 TIEs and 3 Bombers. Against ship-only lists you have a hefty punch, and I won't argue that. But against an opponent with squadrons (often, I'm sure) you only have 3 basic TIEs no screen your bombers that only have range 1 shots. One enemy squadron command has a change of killing most of your TIEs and the second will eliminate all your

Squads from the game. So, the way I see it, your squadrons don't add much to your game. Ryhmer alone might give you some teeth with medium ship range on batteries, but you're still in trouble if you get a single interceptor or two to engage you (speed 5 is scary).

You said you have 67 squadron points of 100 spent...well, you have a double-whamy there in that you aren't spending your full points, while having very generic and General fighters that can't stand up to anything specialized. So two factors work against your investment.

To illustrate: my squadron list has more anti-fighter dedication than ALL of yours AND I have 2 bombers with medium range to threaten ships while you struggle to slow my fighters down. I also have more options to deal with yours: I've ab advanced to force all your shots off my TIEs while they howl+flight control+reroll your few ships dead. I also have two 5 speed ships to make your

Bombers utterly useless eoth their range 1.

As for your ships...the way I look at it lately, is similar to accounting: fixed cost and variable cost. You have a fixed cost for the ship, and let's assign it a usefulness value.

Now if you buy X ships you get Y usefulness. And the fact that the base cost is so high, you have to give up your variable costs (upgrades) to take more.

Now imagine that upgrades are a usefulness multiplayer: if I take my demolisher, with ACM, Wulff, and Engine techs. I could (random values for demonstration purposes) argue each upgrade adds ~15-25% increase in usefulness depending on its cost, and compounds further with surgeries like wulff and engine techs. So my 56 point ship pays 32 points (for an 88 point ship) and I would rate it's usefullness value at AT least double its base cost...meaning for 32 points I've added at least 56 points of valie.

So with ships, with the high buy-in cost, synergies for a fraction of the ship cost will add MUCH more value to your list than a second ship, which then takes away from other aspects of your list.

Lots of good points here.

I would claim that to play a 3-ship Imperial fleet like this, you have to concentrate on common TIEs and INTs - to screen you fleet from enemy fighters. You simply can't afford a bomber wing. Focus on the TWO glads instead, make them your offensive arm.

Re: Advanced gunnery. Is this really what you want? Think about this some...playing vs. a Rebel with 1-2 AF2s (one of them Paragon with say Enhanced Armament)...Rebel goes second...this will hurt you MUCH more than the VSDs ability to shoot twice from the front.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying imperial fighters are rubbish against ships, just that they are inefficient......if this wasn't the case fighters would be the best thing ever and no one would be running with less than 100 points of them in any list (and gods help anyone running those pleby bombers!)

As an example 56 points of tie fighter does less than half the damage to a capital as 56 points of gladiator (and cant make use of crits, accuracy results, or screed). Both have logistical issues associated with reaching their max potential and we can argue back and forth about which of these issues are more or less problematic. Personally I think it boils down to squadrons being flexible in where and when they apply damage while capitals apply more of it and can act as independent elements of the fleet.

Bitharne – you seem to be saying something along the lines of “my 99 points of squadrons and howl runner, and flight controllers is going to wipe the floor with your squadrons”........well yes I should hope so! (The game would be horribly unbalanced if you could invest over 100 points in squadrons and squadron related upgrades and then lose to less than half that value of bog standard TIE fighters).

I just don't see this as too much of a problem so long as I'm winning elsewhere – If I lose every single squadron and inflict no damage with them but destroy all my opponents capitals I still win 10:0......in fact I can lose all my squadrons and a gladiator and still win 10:0. So far I have lost the squadron game in pretty much every game of armada I have played, but so long as they tie up the opposing squadrons long enough (doesn’t have to be long, just long enough) then its all good.

So far in the games I have played (rebel and imperial) the single most important factor in making squadrons work has seemed to be the consistency of squadron commands.......if I am able to break that consistency by either destroying the commanding capitals of forcing them to flee out of command range of their squadrons then the threat of enemy squadrons falls off very quickly.

And despite all of this we seem to be talking about if I should re-invest two bombers into more fighters or not. Against >100 points of fighters and fighter upgrades its irrelevant, I lose that fight regardless. When I'm not against maxed out squadrons I think having a couple of bombers lurking round the back ready to chase any irritating flanking capitals might be very handy, and if I'm against a heavy fighter bomber list then having some lurking bombers to draw some of their squadrons out of command range might also be helpful.

On capital ship upgrades I agree with the principal Bitharne. However, have you considered the “cost/value” of more or less activations in your accounting, and how do you factor in a persons play style? e.g. I put a lot of value on having more activations, other people with a different tactical philosophy put more value on activating “more” (i.e. a greater percentage of their fleet) at once.

Another example would be the concussion missiles......yes they add value to a ship, but they add twice as much value if that ship is able to move last and set up a dual arc shot for next turn, as opposed to that ship having to move before its target and the opponent then evading one arc, or even worse jumping out of range entirely.

Green Knight – if the double AF2 rebel fleet is going second then I'm picking from their objectives......if I'm going second and they chose advanced gunnery then its just a gunnery team as far as they are concerned (it would be pretty pants on paragon – it either uses the objective bonus but cant use the paragon ability, or it uses the paragon ability but gains nothing from the mission while being twice the cost).

It's never irrelevant to have more fighters especially at a lower amounts of points dedicated to squadrons. IF an enemy invests into the full 100 points, he's generally bringing dedicated bombers because his ships will be lacking crucial anti-ship upgrades. Dedicated bombers are horrendously inefficient anti-squadron (Even B-wings, same dice as tie fighters only no swarm and almost double the cost) meaning your smaller points of pure fighters still has a great chance of grinding through them

Either way, though, Ties don't even have to win a single engagement, they just have to keep your ships and their laughable inability to harm enemy squadrons from getting swamped before they can bring down the opposing capital ships. 3 bombers meanwhile, especially without rhymer, are going to get engaged by the first available A-wing and get rendered useless for most of the game

@Boothy: True, that my squads would trounce yours as I invested more points. But what's interesting, is that that is what I want. I want squads to engage, it makes my fighters useful.

So, I find it interesting when people say they can speed bump me...ok, so you're giving me what I want and framing it as a win for you. Since I've my fighters synergized to expect them to handle an equally capable squad, I can invest even less in destroying your screen and more into killing your ships or scoring on SupPos.

This game is odd, when you consider it, that it encourages diviersity but also punishes you for token gestures...your 5 fighters and even Bombers, are token gestures at the squad game, and hinder you to the point that (at least the bombers) are wasted points. So I would say 67 points wouldn't be bad...if you avoided the bombers. Essentially you have no way to employ the bombers, and you're investing in more ships meaning you don't necisarily need the bombers. Hard to explain exactly, as its too much and too little at the same time

As for the more ships for more activations, yes. That's huge. But my example for that is, say each ship adds 25% power to your list, so a 2 ship list would be 375pts of power, 3 would be 425. But a demolisher of your demolisher is double value: your two ship list jumps to 485 power. Better than a basic 3 ship list.

Again, I'm pulling values outa my butt, but I'm just demonstrating a concept.

This hinges, to me, on the insane buy-in-cost of armada ships over x-wing fighters lends towards investing into 10-20 points of upgrades for your 50-80 point ship. And when you so that it removes enoigh that you simply can't invest in another large ship.

Here's my takeaway from your list and strategy.

If I'm flying even 61 points of Reb fighters, 2x A's and 3x X's, I can easily prevent your Bombers ever getting an attack on my ships, and I still have a decent chance of taking out your whole fighter wing.

That leaves our fleets against each other. Your VGG vanilla list, according to some of your ideas on your Objectives, is to have your Glads take out my fleet while the VSD slowly brings up the rear or denies an area of the map. And I'm just not that scared of two bare bone GSDs.

Fickle – that’s a serious over generalisation re points spent on squadrons. There are loads of imperial lists going around with maybe a single bomber (the major) and then a whole load of superiority fighters, combos, and enhancements.

I totally agree that the fighters don’t have to win a single engagement to be worth their points……I think I said as much in my last post.

The bombers may get engaged by an opponent with far more squadrons, but there are tricks to preventing it (hiding in obstacles, intervening ships etc……its far from infallible, but it can certainly make them a pain to lock out of the fight completely.) Against an opponent with far more squadrons than me I would probably hold them back as reserves to try and finish of anything slipping round the flanks or running away. To get at them squadrons would have to be on the far side of my fleet which puts my squadrons within my command range, out of the enemy’s gunnery range, and takes their squadrons out of their command range. This obviously becomes a balancing act between how many fighter and bombers they have…….but that’s the game.

After all this talk it is entirely possible that the two bombers (I am pretty set on dropping one for concussion missiles) don’t add much. If so I could swap them for more fighters as suggested, or maybe upgrading the victories long range firepower (Wulff + dominator, or H9 + warlord).

Bitharne – I do get what you’re saying with the squadron investment I have made. It may be true, but I’m going to give the bombers a go first (the two of you going “this can’t work, it’s stupid” has made me more resolute than ever to test it out). There is a local guy playing a gallant haven + yavaris + squadrons + all the tricks list that I think I might have to try and test this against, but ideally I would also need to test it against moderate opposing squadrons and minimal squadron builds to get a really good idea of how it works.

I also do still understand the point you are making re upgrades and capitals……unfortunately throwing more pretend stats at me hasn’t made anything more convincing - I believe that more activations is worth at least 250 points of efficiency, so my three ship list gives me 550 points of efficiency to you meagre 425 so :-p

Coastcityo – I don’t have any specific role in mind for the victory. It can lead the charge, or act as a squadron support ship, or a second wave, or a weighted flank……whatever as appropriate really. I do want it fighting though. If it was going to be purely a support ship I would go for a victory-I. The idea with the objectives is to make an opponents fleet more predictable to try and offset the relatively low manuverability of the empire compared to the rebels (unless the empire is running an all engine tech gladiator list or something). The exception to this is advanced gunnery, if someone wants to allow the victory to put 12 dice into something they can be my guest lol.

If you have any alternative ideas on any objectives please feel free to add them (particularly assault, advanced gunnery feels like the weak link at the moment, but that’s just a gut feel).

That’s one very bold statement indeed on a potential matchup with our fighters. I think it would come down to whoever got the timing of squadron commands right, and if those commands were used correctly.