I just can't figure out their purpose. I can figure out the purpose of fighters and other anti-squadron squadrons but at the end of the day, I'm not understanding what it is that squadrons are bringing to the table better than ships.

Could someone explain to me the benefit that squadrons provide? What am I losing by spending points on ships instead of squadrons?

One of the best benefits of squadrons are their flexibility. Consider, tactically, that a ship must fire, and then move, which limits your options when it comes to placing your shots where you want them. Your firing arcs are greatly limited.

Now, consider, a squadron-support VSD, capable of supporting 4 squadrons. While the VSD can put down its normal firepower, you've swapped out its regular upgrades for squadron support upgrades (expanded hanger, etc). This allows you to use a well timed squadron support command to move and then fire all 4 of your squadrons' firepower. This increases your flexibility, allowing you to engage targets 360 degrees around your ship.

Squadrons also have a nasty habit of being hard to shoot down for some vehicles. A VSD, for instance, only has 1 anti-squadron die. Against squadrons like Y-Wings, which have 6 friggin' hull points and cost only 9 points, you're gonna be taking some hurt up the butt if you don't have some way to fend them off your hiney. Keeping a few squadrons of TIE-Fighters or something similar around to defend your sensitive posterior is very helpful (remember, squadrons cannot attack ships while engaged with other squadrons).

Now, is a no-squadron build more effective than one that includes it? It really depends on the lists, and what game you're playing. The GenCon tournaments saw the no-squadrons builds do well, but we'll see if that holds once wave-II drops.

I think squadrons allow what ammounts to several one die shots. Odds are you won't use your defense tokens to stop one hit at a time. It's war by attrition. But the caveat is to need to activate them to get the most action from them. You basically are sacrificing a concentrate firepower order for squadron order. One extra die given up for 2-4 individual attacks.

Aye. Of course, those 2-4 individual attacks cost you more points. Personally, I think that 3 TIE-Fighters and Howlrunner on a VSD-II with the Flight Controllers and Expanded Hanger upgrades is a pretty nasty combo. 40 points for the squadrons, and 100 points for the VSD-II (I'd also give it leading shots to let it still be able to apply some proper punch). Each squadron your ship activates gets +1 blue die for the Flight Controllers upgrade, and Howlrunner gives all friendly squadrons with Swarm within range 1 another blue die. So, each TIE-Fighter will put out 5 blue dice in its anti-squadron attack. If you can hit first (which, with speed 4, you should be able to), you'll gain air superiority. Those TIE-Fighters will give you 4 extra blue dice per turn.

At best possible position, you would want to hold back until your opponent extends their squadrons. Use the Squadron command to deal the first-strike (and hopefully last) against their squadrons. Hopefully, you'll be able to put yourself into position so that your ship can move up and be within close-medium range of them again next turn. Use the Squadron again, and let the TIEs swarm the enemy ship. 4 blues aren't a whole lot, but they're enough to give you an edge, and give your opponent something to think about.

You need to think of squadrons more in the role that they traditionally fill in modern fleet combat. Realizing realistic 3d ship combat in the form of a tabletop game would be prohibitively complex to say the least, and ships engaging eachother at thousands of kilometers just isn't as interesting as close range brawling, so Armada has more in combat mechanically with the naval combat we saw in World Wars I and II.

Squadrons act like an extension of your ship, more than ships on their own. They're force projection systems, allowing you to spend some points to project a certain number of black/blue dice forward to soften up a ship, off to a flank to disincentivize enemy ship movement, or deployed in screens to prevent enemy bombers from engaging your ships. The real bonus that fighters bring is mobility, being able to shift your dice around the board rapidly to respond to threats and the shifting enemy deployment.

Mastering the basic fighter screen is easy enough and, in my experience, a fairly potent counter to bombers, since anengaged squadron can't fire on ships while engaged.

Personally, I think that 3 TIE-Fighters and Howlrunner on a VSD-II with the Flight Controllers and Expanded Hanger upgrades is a pretty nasty combo. 40 points for the squadrons, and 100 points for the VSD-II (I'd also give it leading shots to let it still be able to apply some proper punch). Each squadron your ship activates gets +1 blue die for the Flight Controllers upgrade, and Howlrunner gives all friendly squadrons with Swarm within range 1 another blue die. So, each TIE-Fighter will put out 5 blue dice in its anti-squadron attack. If you can hit first (which, with speed 4, you should be able to), you'll gain air superiority. Those TIE-Fighters will give you 4 extra blue dice per turn.

Everything Viratin has said is true, but becomes irrelevant if your opponent brings a fleet without squadrons.

Whether they are right or wrong, whether the tournament sample is too small to give an indication or not, a lot of players are moving towards fleets with more ships and more activations. Every upgrade and squadron listed above just widens the power gap between the ship-heavy and squadron-heavy fleets.

There was a period where people were discussing Mauler+howlrunner+soontir+vader combos, or dutch and wedge with AWings to clean the skies as potential ways to swing the game, but harsh reality has set in and winning squadron superiority often isn't a game winner -on the contrary, players often give their opponents total squadron superiority by taking none of their own, and instead just focus on winning the game.

I imagine a lot of players would like squadrons to be more powerful, useful and worthwhile, and would like a balanced fleet to be inherently better than one that eschews squadrons for more ships. I would certainly prefer that, but don't think that is where the game is right now.

i.m.h.o.

Personally, I think that 3 TIE-Fighters and Howlrunner on a VSD-II with the Flight Controllers and Expanded Hanger upgrades is a pretty nasty combo. 40 points for the squadrons, and 100 points for the VSD-II (I'd also give it leading shots to let it still be able to apply some proper punch). Each squadron your ship activates gets +1 blue die for the Flight Controllers upgrade, and Howlrunner gives all friendly squadrons with Swarm within range 1 another blue die. So, each TIE-Fighter will put out 5 blue dice in its anti-squadron attack. If you can hit first (which, with speed 4, you should be able to), you'll gain air superiority. Those TIE-Fighters will give you 4 extra blue dice per turn.

Everything Viratin has said is true, but becomes irrelevant if your opponent brings a fleet without squadrons.

Whether they are right or wrong, whether the tournament sample is too small to give an indication or not, a lot of players are moving towards fleets with more ships and more activations. Every upgrade and squadron listed above just widens the power gap between the ship-heavy and squadron-heavy fleets.

This has been my (limited) experience playing locally both casually and in tournament.

Ship and activation heavy builds are in vogue, and spending the points on a fighter screen only to find out your opponent HAS NO FIGHTERS puts you at a measurable disadvantage before the game even starts.

Now, if you've spent a LOT of points on bombers, you might do better, but being able to keep a ship close enough to command those bombers while their huge number of activations hunt your capital ships again places you at a MASSIVE disadvantage.

As far as I can tell, the way the game is built favors the activation heavy all ship build, which leaves me in the sh*tty position of being a Fighter Hipster a lot of the time.

"Whatever man, I run TIE interceptors, you've probably never heard of them, but I remember before the all-ship build went mainstream. Buncha sheeple"

I truely believe that the Rebel fighters are easier to justify. Mostly because all but the A Wing are bombers. If you run into an all ship build its still effective because your hits and crits do damage. You also can anti squadron with them.

I'd like to think that 3 X Wings cost 39pts... One corvette runs 39/44pts. And it's 3 individual attacks not one or two attacks (3 dice) that can be reduced down to 1 or two hits despite best rolls.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fighters provide different things to different fleets.

Rebel fighters have more options than Imperials because TIEs excel as either fighters or bombers, while every Alliance fighter can function to some degree in either role. So taking TIEs forces you to build versus ships or fighters, meaning you might be "wasting points" if you go Int heavy versus a no fighter CR90 swarm.

On the other hand, since an A and X-wing can be effective against ships and fighters, you're not ever wasting points by bringing them along. Plus, some ships synergize better with squadrons than others. A NebB, especially the Yavaris, really love B-wings.

True, and fair enough - in fact even Tie Fighters and Interceptors are never useless, all those individual blue anti-ship dice do add up. They're just not the most efficient use of points.

I am fairly new here but have wargamed for over 30 years. My impression is this game is won by the elimination of capital ships and right now fighters are fairly anemic against then unless continually supported by a close to medium range capital ship which is better off manuevering, focusing fire or repairing damage.

I understand and agree that squadrons should not be able to move and attack aquadrons without a ship command. I see this as the controllers from the ship using their superior sensors to guide the squadron in on another fast moving squadron. That should not be the case though for moving and attacking ships which are significantly larger lumbering targets. This change would immediately increase the effectiveness of squadrons in eliminating ships while retaining the importance of commands for effectively countering squadrons.

In Tournament play, yes, squadrons are very 'meh' right now. But if all we focus on is tournament play, this game is going to go to hell in a handbasket right quick.

The big reason why the tournament players do well is because of how the tournament scoring rules are set up. If you destroy all of your enemy's ships, you get a full 300 points for their kill, regardless if you kill their squadrons or not. This, more than anything, is what makes the squadrons somewhat dead weight, since taking in more points of ships makes it that much harder for your opponent to sweep you.

Now, in regular games (friendly but competitive), this isn't the case, so it evens out the playing field more.

Basically: squadrons aren't terrible. They're just not great for tournament. And since tournament players post on this forum like it's the only thing there is to the game, people with less experience take their words as the end-all-be-all of how this game should be played. Take stuff with a grain of salt if you read it, and figure out if these suggestions are coming from a tournament or friendly game mindset.

True, and fair enough - in fact even Tie Fighters and Interceptors are never useless, all those individual blue anti-ship dice do add up. They're just not the most efficient use of points.

Regarding Fighters in the current metagame- The points cost hurts because you can't get a decent number of activations and a good fighter screen right now- That might change at 400, where the difference in activations will be less severe (4 activations vs 2 is very painful. 6 v 4 significantly less so). Being able to ignore squadrons when trying to table is also awkward.

Lastly, while I realize the rules work the way they do for a reason, it will never cease to bug me every time a capital ship outruns a starfighter.

In Tournament play, yes, squadrons are very 'meh' right now. But if all we focus on is tournament play, this game is going to go to hell in a handbasket right quick.

I can't agree with that view... Tournament play is pretty much the focus with Xwing and that's worked out just fine for that game.

The point scoring system is far more simple with x-wing though. Because of the duality of the Armada game, we're seeing a whole section of the game being left behind in tournament play. If people play that way all the time in friendly matches, well, meh.

This equasion was not made up by me, but gives a good impression on squadrons imho: no squadrons -> few squadrons -> max squadrons -> no squadrons. This will become more obvious with next waves scum and villain fighters and the rogue keyword, but I feel this is more or less exact at this moment as well.

I am pro squadron and love the dimension they bring to the game. In all of the matches I have played, they have been vital to the overall victory or defeat. The trick is designing cunning mixes of heroes and regulars that really complement each other and backing this with a decent carrier capital that can wield them at the right time and place. Well worth the effort

I'm just going to have to continue to disagree on the idea that squadron points aren't cost effective. I run Rebels, and I never leave home without my NebB escorted by two B-wings.

I'm paying an extra 28 points for an additional 2x Black and Blue dice, that is more firepower for less points than a CR90. Since they are escorting the NebB, they will either be able to attack with a squadron command anything within Medium range, or on their own versus anything within short range. And if I pay the extra nickel, then the Yavaris title doubles the killer B's firepower versus anything within Short range of my NebB.

If my enemy is running a double VSD list, then my initial exchange at long range is an equal Red dice exchange, followed by my NebB siding to the side to try and maintain that range, and a swarm of B's that he won't be able to outrun.

If my enemy is running a list with Glads, then he is closing with me which only helps pull off the Yavaris double strike from my B's, unless he can destroy the Yavaris in a single shot with eleven damage to the side or six damage and two precision dice results. That's 4x Black and Blue for a modest 33 points and still cheaper than the CR90.

If it's a Blue on Blue battle in a Tourney environment, then I'm either looking at a CR90 swarm, which still needs to come to me to attack, meaning he can't outrun my slow B's through pure speed, and my B's are still pumping out more firepower than that same CR90. Or I'm looking at some kind of Space Guppy and one or two escorts, or two Fatties. And if he's going no Squadron meta builds, then I'm still looking at my 28 points giving me a bigger punch for their cost, and he's left his squadrons in the box so I already have air superiority.

I'm very new to Armada, but I still don't 'get' squadrons. The way I see it:

> If you activate first, then you auto-win the squadron game if you take one or more squadron commands in the first round

> Without a squadron command, squadrons can only feasibly attack ships if you have successfully predicted the movement of an enemy ship and placed your squadron there in the previous round. Not easy to do, considering movement is variable in this game (aside from speed)

> Strangely enough, Rebel fleets seem to become less effective with more squadrons whereas the Imperial squadrons synergise really well (Howlrunner + swarm alone is amazing)

> They clutter up the board, becoming a threat when your ship overlaps squadrons after a move. Opposing player will just place his bombers against your weakest side, and any of your squadrons on the opposite side out of engagement range

> The squadron game ends early. Really early. Rarely does it extend beyond round 3, though often the first turn of combat will see player 2 lose half his squadrons

Yes, the fighter game does seem to be decided rather quickly, although I don't necessarily agree that it can be won just by going first- The empire needs to get force multiplying uniques placed carefully, while the Rebels have the amazing Gallant Haven and Yavaris titles, both of which require some care to use correctly (The Gallant Haven bubble is small but a game changer, particularly for aces with two brace tokens, while the Yavaris can turn any of the Rebel Uniques or B-wings into nightmares, but you need to be engaged for it to work)

I believe at the 400 point level we will see fighters open up more. Currently we have enough space on the board to easily jet around a few cr90s and gladiators. Once we start adding some bigger ships the space required to run some of the current hit adding and run tactics won't be so easy to come by. It will also open up more squad dpaceboverall, since you could still fit in two kitted neb bs, two cr90s, a frigate and then 60 points of fighters with relative ease.

Here is what I dont understand about the "squadron sucks" camp...

You have to kill my carrier to win. Thats where the points are. If I know where your ships are going to go, I can place a cloud of bombers there and you wont survive with the ship trying to block me. Whats worse, I can sacrifice a CR90 to make sure you get blocked and delay you within the cloud even longer.

You almost dont need the squadron command to accomplish this...it helps against token fighter forces, but against all ships it would seem an easy win to me.

I'll have to vassal it a few times I suppose...Ive got my opponents thinking max squadrons is the way to go.

I just dont see it. Im 100% of the opinion that one guy won a tourney with an EXTREME list that noone was ready for...now (according to armchair and sideline generals) the entire meta is defined. I dont buy it.

6 y wings

3 a wings

Firget honey badger...squadrons dont give a f***!

Im 100% of the opinion that one guy won a tourney with an EXTREME list that noone was ready for...now (according to armchair and sideline generals) the entire meta is defined. I dont buy it.

Yeah, and from what that developer said in the interview he never actually ran into a bomber heavy list, which you would imagine to be it's achilles heel. I think fighter builds are a perfectly valid way to go. Especially imperial rhymer lists, where a very moderate investment can get out of hand damage wise if they have no screen.

One of the issues I have with bomber-heavy lists are the points required to adequately run them. 9 points per bomber, and 18 for Rhymer, let's say. For a full up VSD, that puts you at 40 points in bombers. That's near around half the cost of a VSD. To best use those squadrons, you have to use the Squadron command, which takes away from the effectiveness of your VSD. So, you're sacrificing not only points, but the capability of your hard-punching VSD. Compound this with the issue that you'll need to use Navigate commands to keep your VSD where you need it to be in order to command your squadrons, and you're running into multiple issues your opponent can take advantage of. Not to mention the fact that 4 squadrons of bombers can be ripped apart by even a few enemy anti-squadron squadrons (a-wings, interceptors, TIE-fighters, x-wings).

Here's what I think would balance out the Squadron game, and make it a more integral part of the game: rather than having a Squadron command on the dial, your ships automatically give the Squadron command effect to each squadron in its squadron range (short-medium), up to the number of squadrons in its Squadron stat. This way, fleet-carrier ships still have to focus on remaining in range of their squadrons (which keeps them balanced), but doesn't create the duality issue described above (having to use squadron command to be effective, but having to use Navigates to make sure you stay with them). This would make Squadrons and their Fleet-Support ships more worth their points in the game.

Of course, if you do this, you'll also need to include a proper balance of squadrons in your list, since you'll need to not only attack enemy squadrons, but fend off enemy ones as well (since more people would be likely to play them in this fashion). Having to have this balance will keep spamming lists from getting too powerful (bomber-only groups, for instance, would get chewed up by a couple anti-squadrons, as described above). You could also focus on running anti-squadrons to keep your ship safe (such as a VSD taking a screen of cheap TIE-Fighters), and then using the extra points (since TIEs are cheap) to increase your ship's anti-ship capability (thus putting your anti-ship power into your ship, rather than bombers).

Something really strange is the designers felt fighters were so powerful, you are limited to a maximum of 1/3 of your points on them.

What are we missing that the designers felt they needed a limit?

I mean, yeah, I can understand the desire to prevent someone bringing a CR90 with ~ 250 points fighters against someone who brought just a regular fleet. The CR90 would just kite for 6 turns. But even then, your fighters would be SLAUGHTERED by the opponents commanded fighters.

What are your thought?

-----------------

Personally, I suspect te 1/3 point limit was an initial nerf... Why? Because originally fighters could move and shoot during the squadron phase. The Squadron command's only benefit was to give an alpha strike. So people would just kite around and demolish the opposing fleet with fighters. (Limit how much you can take of the uber item)

But then the designers found that people still liked fighters way too much, so they made the squadron phase move OR shoot. But this dramatically reduced the value of fighters... And therefore they reduced the Anti-squadron value of the capital ships Right before they went to the printer(hence the downward revision in the AS dice from the news articles)

Now you may be asking yourselves, well the game designer said the Nationals winner didn't get punished for going all ships. That's called a confirmation bias (tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

Therefore, provide the premium isn't too high, we should see rogue keyword fighters bring it back.