ECM is ungodly good against large ships.

Might as well make accuracy useless.

Less useful I think but with the rise of ECM's comes the rise of Intel Officer.

I've been using both since shortly after wave 1 came out... Didn't realize it wasn't already Commonly used as my usual opponent also uses 1 or both.

“If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.”

Can you interpret that Chinese for us?

He means that you don't make mindlessly adhere to your plans. Be flexible in what you do and the lists you build.

I don't believe that's what Sun Tzu meant with that statement. Sun Tzu is all about perception and misperception. Tvayumat is quoting two sentences that don't appear back-to-back in the translations that I've seen, but have a number of other statements between them.

The first sentence means: When I know where the enemy is located and what the enemy is doing, while he cannot do the same of me (because fog of war), then I can bring my forces together and strike at his divided forces.

The second sentence means: The best deployment is one in which your forces are concealed.

This is not particularly applicable to Armada, except in the deployment phase when your opponent doesn't yet know where you're deploying your forces.

Maybe also when you can make it so that you opponent thinks you're going to do one thing, when you have carefully laid plans to do something else. This is also something that's difficult to pull off in Armada, because the ships don't move on a dime, and planning the navigate commands to change your 'disposition' comes at a cost of other things. Also, your opponent may be clever and take into account what you might do in addition to what you look like you're doing.

Indeed, it's abridged in order to highlight the portions applicable specifically to the game of Armada.

If you haven't begun to fight your enemy by the time you're laying down obstacle tokens... well... I hesitate to say you're doing it *wrong* but you're definitely hamstringing yourself.

Deployment in particular is, for me at least, a huge part of the battle.

Speaking to practical application: The placement of your first ship is massive. Depending on the speed and maneuverability of the ship, you may have just committed to a predictable choice of movement arcs for the rest of the game. The player with initiative has to make a leap into the dark in placing the first ship on the board, with nothing but the obstacles and objective card to guide his strategy.

The second player IMMEDIATELY has a deployment advantage. He knows where that one ship can go, and can begin to counter deploy. Bearing this in mind, as the first player, I will often try to obscure my intentions by deploying a fast, maneuverable vessel that can easily adapt to the changing battlefield first, then drop squadrons in an attempt to force my opponent to commit to a strategy without committing to one myself. (in this sense, the Raider is a godsend)

Once the enemy has deployed, they've revealed their plan. You can look at their ships and, based on spacing and angle, determine in a general sense the courses they are able to take vs the courses they WANT to take.

See what the enemy WANTS to do, then do your damndest to NOT let them do it. Did your opponent deploy a conga-line of broadsiders? Well, now you can meet it head on. Spearhead formation of destroyers? Now you can deploy in optimal flanking position. Strong fighter presence with a few carriers? Now you can spread your ships out to minimize the danger those fighters pose, or stretch their squadron commands far enough to nullify the dangerous Yavaris.

This game is all about making decisions. The more informed your decisions are, the more potent they will be. The less information you give your opponent to make decisions with, the better off you are.

The player with the better plan will almost always walk away from the table victorious, but ideally your opponent won't fully grasp that plan until it's too late to do anything about it.

ECM is ungodly good against large ships.

Might as well make accuracy useless.

Less useful I think but with the rise of ECM's comes the rise of Intel Officer.

I've been using both since shortly after wave 1 came out... Didn't realize it wasn't already Commonly used as my usual opponent also uses 1 or both.

I stayed away from XI7 Turbolasers because anything less than 4 damage on a ship with a brace is pointless. They would redirect maybe 1 extra point. At 3 damage which is the average on 5 red dice reliably, they just don't cut it.

ECM is ungodly good against large ships.

Might as well make accuracy useless.

Less useful I think but with the rise of ECM's comes the rise of Intel Officer.

I've been using both since shortly after wave 1 came out... Didn't realize it wasn't already Commonly used as my usual opponent also uses 1 or both.

I stayed away from XI7 Turbolasers because anything less than 4 damage on a ship with a brace is pointless. They would redirect maybe 1 extra point. At 3 damage which is the average on 5 red dice reliably, they just don't cut it.

That's what intel officer is for...

"Want to use that brace? Sweet! it's gone for the rest of the game then!"

So far, xi7 and intel officer has been great for me in games, expeically when playing rebels.

Indeed, it's abridged in order to highlight the portions applicable specifically to the game of Armada.

[...]

EDIT: Misread what Mikael said.

I very much agree with all of that.

The problem with being first player and positioning a first ship, is that if you use that first ship deployment as a ruse, then you are paying a cost. But, if you're going to do that, then having a ton of squadrons is a definite advantage. Once you've placed your first misleading ship, you can start deploying squadrons and delay the moment that you have to reveal (or even decide) the placement of your ships. As long as you have more squadrons than your opponent, you can force your opponent to deploy more ships earlier and read her/his plan.

Indeed, it's abridged in order to highlight the portions applicable specifically to the game of Armada.

[...]

EDIT: Misread what Mikael said.

I very much agree with all of that.

The problem with being first player and positioning a first ship, is that if you use that first ship deployment as a ruse, then you are paying a cost. But, if you're going to do that, then having a ton of squadrons is a definite advantage. Once you've placed your first misleading ship, you can start deploying squadrons and delay the moment that you have to reveal (or even decide) the placement of your ships. As long as you have more squadrons than your opponent, you can force your opponent to deploy more ships earlier and read her/his plan.

I counter-agree to your agreement.

As with every other lesson from Sun Tzu, this is merely one tool in the box. Knowing when to use it, and more importantly when NOT to use it, makes all the difference.

Indeed, it's abridged in order to highlight the portions applicable specifically to the game of Armada.

[...]

EDIT: Misread what Mikael said.

I very much agree with all of that.

The problem with being first player and positioning a first ship, is that if you use that first ship deployment as a ruse, then you are paying a cost. But, if you're going to do that, then having a ton of squadrons is a definite advantage. Once you've placed your first misleading ship, you can start deploying squadrons and delay the moment that you have to reveal (or even decide) the placement of your ships. As long as you have more squadrons than your opponent, you can force your opponent to deploy more ships earlier and read her/his plan.

Agreed.

Deploying something cheap and maneuverable and fast (like a Raider or a CR90) and then proceeding to slowly fill in cheap squadrons around it (TIE Fighters or A Wings would be my preference as both are cheap and fast enough to snap back to where they're needed quickly should the ruse deployment be non-ideal) can be a very points-effective way of making your foe show his hand, at which point you can counter-deploy your big heavy hitters. Once the game starts, you can either swing your ruse ship safely around the sides of the board to get some attacks in later on in the game or snap it into position with your main fleet, depending on numerous factors.

...we could probably do without the Art of War conversation though. Unless we also want some guys showing up quoting Clausewitz and we can have a war philosophy jam session. Every minis wargaming forum I've ever been in has had someone quoting The Art of War, and it always feels forced and like it's trying to conceal some deficiency in the author's actual argument to me (whether that is the intent or not). Minis wargames are facsimiles of war on an extremely abstract scale (and often featuring fantastic/futuristic elements totally absent from real warfare, as well as near-perfect knowledge of all factors involved in the conflict) and it always feels like a stretch to equate the two. Plus the Art of War is basically "suppose you were a smart Daoist in charge of military affairs for your ruler," which makes absolutes (such as quotes) seem contrary to the intent of the text. But that's just me.

...we could probably do without the Art of War conversation though. Unless we also want some guys showing up quoting Clausewitz and we can have a war philosophy jam session. Every minis wargaming forum I've ever been in has had someone quoting The Art of War, and it always feels forced and like it's trying to conceal some deficiency in the author's actual argument to me (whether that is the intent or not). Minis wargames are facsimiles of war on an extremely abstract scale (and often featuring fantastic/futuristic elements totally absent from real warfare, as well as near-perfect knowledge of all factors involved in the conflict) and it always feels like a stretch to equate the two. Plus the Art of War is basically "suppose you were a smart Daoist in charge of military affairs for your ruler," which makes absolutes (such as quotes) seem contrary to the intent of the text. But that's just me.

The Art of War gets discussed in every wargaming forum because it is relevant to essentially every wargame to some degree (Some more or less so than others, admittedly). In fact, it's applicable to virtually any situation in life in which even two people are in an adversarial position.

It seems like the issue is with the source of the information rather than the information itself, as if drawing lessons from classical sources and applying them to less than full scale warfare is somehow pretentious, or undesireable.

The intent of the text is meaningless. The application of the text is what matters. It's made me a better player, and the subject of this thread is "lessons you've learned".

I keep this passage in particular in mind EVERY time I play, and it has a measurable impact on my quality of play.

Frankly, I'd recommend that every Armada player read both The Art of War and the Book of Five Rings. Each of these works has made me a better, more considered player. That said, I'll happily keep my future contributions less abstract, and more specific to the game in question.

EDIT: Also, Sun Tzu's writing is not as time and place specific as you make out, in my opinion and the opinion of many others. Much of what he wrote deals with manipulating the psyche of your opponent and ensuring that you yourself are not manipulated in turn. If someone were quoting say... The Prince, I'd say you have a point.

EDIT 2: Corrected my tone, insofar as it's possible via text.

It mostly comes down to it feels like someone brought an architectural guidebook to someone when they asked how to build better Lego fortresses. Sure, there are things you can learn, but the applicability and expertise seem to be out of alignment for the request made. I've read The Art of War. I've read Book of the Five Rings. I've read On War. I've read The Prince. They're interesting and I'd recommend them overall (although I find Book of the Five Rings to be overrated for modern use, but that's not really relevant to this conversation). I feel like the most important lessons of those books are using the guidelines and observations to lead the reader to a certain way of thinking when facing adversaries or when they are in precarious circumstances rather than to set down hard rules and easily digested quotes.

I've also spent some time doing academic work and my BS alarms go off whenever I get the feeling someone is relying on quotes from established sources the reader has not read before to prove a point. This is true of anything that seems to be seeking to add an extra air of authority or to somehow obfuscate a point, which quotes are great at doing. I freely admit that is my own inherent bias, but in general I find points better communicated when made simply and directly without relying on outside sources more than absolutely necessary.

My intent isn't to fight you about it, however, merely to point out that I don't feel like it makes your argument any stronger than simply giving more direct advice about deployment ruses (for example: see all of the follow up discussion trying to parse out exactly what the quote meant). Please accept my apologies if you took it as a personal attack. I agree that overall I'd recommend people read The Art of War, though.

It mostly comes down to it feels like someone brought an architectural guidebook to someone when they asked how to build better Lego fortresses.

This is a perfectly valid critique.

I freely admit that is my own inherent bias, but in general I find points better communicated when made simply and directly without relying on outside sources more than absolutely necessary.

My intent isn't to fight you about it, however, merely to point out that I don't feel like it makes your argument any stronger than simply giving more direct advice about deployment ruses (for example: see all of the follow up discussion trying to parse out exactly what the quote meant). Please accept my apologies if you took it as a personal attack. I agree that overall I'd recommend people read The Art of War, though.

Not at all, no worries.

See, I absorb information differently, and I find a well crafted axiom more helpful to my thinking.

I concede that I could/should have included the content of my second post (explanation and application) with my first post, which is a bit cryptic without that accompaniment.

I'll bring this back to the original matter...

2 AFmkII's (or more) in wave 1 is the solution to most situations in Armada. If you're not flying at least 1 AF, you better **** well know what you're doing.

The best laid plan is rendered second best when your opponent changes speed.

I was going to write something pithy and brilliant to contribute, but it turns out Tvayumat already read my mind, and stated what I was thinking in a manner more eloquent than I could have...ummmm...ummmm....

....see what I mean?

Deployment dictates how the game will flow...

“If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.”

Can you interpret that Chinese for us?

He means that you don't make mindlessly adhere to your plans. Be flexible in what you do and the lists you build.

I don't believe that's what Sun Tzu meant with that statement. Sun Tzu is all about perception and misperception. Tvayumat is quoting two sentences that don't appear back-to-back in the translations that I've seen, but have a number of other statements between them.

The first sentence means: When I know where the enemy is located and what the enemy is doing, while he cannot do the same of me (because fog of war), then I can bring my forces together and strike at his divided forces.

The second sentence means: The best deployment is one in which your forces are concealed.

This is not particularly applicable to Armada, except in the deployment phase when your opponent doesn't yet know where you're deploying your forces.

Maybe also when you can make it so that you opponent thinks you're going to do one thing, when you have carefully laid plans to do something else. This is also something that's difficult to pull off in Armada, because the ships don't move on a dime, and planning the navigate commands to change your 'disposition' comes at a cost of other things. Also, your opponent may be clever and take into account what you might do in addition to what you look like you're doing.

This is actually what I meant by that "interpret Chinese" joke. Although I have much respect for the poster and for the quote, I find it a little hard to employ. Also, the original Chinese meaning can be multi-faceted due to the low number of characters/symbolic language used in older Chinese texts.

Anyway, on to the quote: Yes. In Armada you have very little ability to change plans. Nav is quite difficult and there is no real fog of war.

Deception is there.

Counter deployment is still a thing. But beyond that, we are playing a game without real fog of war.

I'll take this to Starcraft2, a game with fog of war. In SC2 you have sacrifice units at certain intervals to run into their base or fly into their base and see what they have. With the modern way of this game, if you WANTED to and had the speed for it, you could literally always know what theyre up to. Either by seeing it directly or knowing what vacuum signs are. (He mined this much gas, but i only count half of it in his buildings. lots of gateways in the main, but none circling the 3rd expansion, likely fake for all-in).

I've found that the professionals that lose to "formlessness" percieve such formlessness in their minds because they don't know what they're supposed to expect. As opposed to very good players who have a very clear understanding of the game, just one quesiton about what theyre scouting for or watching them scout shows clearly that they know what they think could kill them, and how to look for it or its absence.

Sun Tsu makes a big deal about things such as quietness of birds in the woods or what exactly a dust trail for spread out or grouped enemies are. This is like what it is in starcraft. In armada, this is much more difficult with how much we know.

Chiming in on the very interesting (and I didn't really see anyone doing anything other than discussing it quite reasonably) Sun Tzu riff and partially on the OP about lessons is I always come back to my own axiom (or perhaps a stolen one and I don't remember where I stole it) is "Don't worry so much about the uncertain paths to victory as much as the certain paths to defeat."

So know what your fleet doesn't do well. Know the situations you must avoid. Know the "If I do this I will lose"s.

I'll bring this back to the original matter...

2 AFmkII's (or more) in wave 1 is the solution to most situations in Armada. If you're not flying at least 1 AF, you better **** well know what you're doing.

Never flown one and I've only lost one game (and won about 10, though only 5 as rebels.)

Killed a few though, and until that loss, hadn't lost a ship to one either.

ECM is ungodly good against large ships.

Might as well make accuracy useless.

Less useful I think but with the rise of ECM's comes the rise of Intel Officer.

I've been using both since shortly after wave 1 came out... Didn't realize it wasn't already Commonly used as my usual opponent also uses 1 or both.

I stayed away from XI7 Turbolasers because anything less than 4 damage on a ship with a brace is pointless. They would redirect maybe 1 extra point. At 3 damage which is the average on 5 red dice reliably, they just don't cut it.

That's what intel officer is for...

"Want to use that brace? Sweet! it's gone for the rest of the game then!"

So far, xi7 and intel officer has been great for me in games, expeically when playing rebels.

Yeah, I think I'm going to be replacing Yularen with an Intel officer next time.

I learned that doing explosion sounds with your mouth really does make your ships hit harder.

Don't follow the hype, just find the way to beat it.

Follow the numbers to point the way (until you shouldn't)

If it took you two seconds to think of the broken combo, what makes you think the play testers missed it? Find their answer (or your own) to the combo. (See Demolisher, and B-wings) (Also see Akbar and ...)

If a major game component (squadrons) doesn't seem to be working correctly, don't ask why did they make a busted game, ask what am I missing.

Ships have size, range, and a limit to how closely they can be packed together, limiting their ability to concentrate fire. Squadrons have much less problems concentrating firepower on a single turn.

As for the Sun Tzu, he can totally be applied to the game in different ways. Its a war game. He's applicable to many other war games. If he wasn't applicable here, there would be a great many questions as to why not. Regarding formlessness in particular, it generally translates to having the ability to shift to a different (and hopefully unexpected) form. Even if the opponent is able to imagine the different forms possible, if you are able to offer enough different choices they shouldn't be able to defend them all. The ability or inability to be formless is very list and formation dependent, and its far easier to to be formless with faster, more numerous ships. A CR-90 swarm will offer many more possibilities, engagement ranges, positions, speeds, etc than a 3 VSD list which you could probably plot out every single possible move for the game in your head. Furthermore, those CR-90s while weak individually, can appear formless until they focus on a particular ship all at once. The ability to time this properly is their skill testing point. It requires testing and practice. It involves creating random looking start setups that merge together at a preestablished time, yet remain flexible to adjust to a shift in enemy timing (speed). In other games it may involve fog-of-war, but it also involves chaos theory. Finding the power patterns beneath what looks like randomness at the surface.

Silly I know but, I learned the hard way (admittedly it was a game for fun) never, EVER pick Hyperspace Assault when your first player.

Silly I know but, I learned the hard way (admittedly it was a game for fun) never, EVER pick Hyperspace Assault when your first player.

When you are playing with a friend, for practice, feel free to explain what you are doing. So you both can learn and experiment.

No matter how clever you think you are against a new opponent, NEVER explain your plan, or the logic of your build. In fact, obfuscate your intentions as much as you can. Until you spring your plan.

In your games of Armada, what lessons have your games taught you?

At the risk of sounding serious, here are my general thoughts:

- Be keenly aware of your fleet's weaknesses, as well as its strenghts.

- Always assume that your opponent will NOT do what you want them to (just be pleasantly surprised when they do).

- Take your time. Six turns make for a surprisingly long game.

- ALWAYS be mindful of the objective. Those points add up.

- Don't chase fast ships; head them off.

- If the move you're considering feels like it might be a bad idea, it probably is.

- Trust your gut over your brain.

Sun Tzu and Mushashi were *******. Everything I needed to know about wargaming I learned from Karate Kid.

"Walk down middle of road, squish like grape."

That everyone needs to, on occasion, take time to re-read through the RRG.

If your clever strategy involves going speed zero at any point, it's probably not that clever.

Taking the Fleet Ambush objective without taking squadrons is very risky.

AFMK2s should never be at close range.

Speed 4 on an MC-30 is weird, but does have a place.