So, my main question is, how to do create your builds? Anyone want to go through a step by step logic of how you put them together?

In this game, it seems like you really have to know what you're going to do with a part of your list. Where it will be in the game, what its hunting for. Which ships move in which order. etc.

Am I wrong on this?

I've always considered that having too complicated plans is a serious drawback. Anyone who's read any strat articles will know this. In theory, its completely obvious that intricate plans are a bad idea.

However, I'm being beat a lot by builds that are very obviously detailed in crafting. This HAS to go before this. This HAS to to shoot the same thing. Ex:

Overload Pulse Raider 2, Avenger ISD followup.

3AF + 1Corv. The first guppy in the congo line HAS to move first (at risk of bumping and also blocking each others shots). You can't get boxed or blocked in the front, creating a 3 layer bump. You gotta hope your opponent doesn't rush the front of your line.

Mc80 defiance squadron title pushing Bs up 4 to Yavaris to Adar Tallon... who sits there and hopes someone walks that direction.

What the heck? There are SOOO many assumptions of plan working here.

Whats your experience (i care not for your untable-tested theory) about how much planning your list has?

Have you been able to execute the plan for the most part? As I'm seeing that less games involve shambling the plans.

How much can you brute force your way through a Battle Plan A?

I like to keep it simple and for some reason if i take upgrades i want the same ones on all my ships.

The plus side: all my ships are usually vanilla, i can activate in any order i need to take advantage of any situation. The lack of upgrades or uniformity makes it easier to use, great for endurance at tournaments. Since my ships are usually naked, opponents get less points for offing one. Having more ships is awesome

The negatives: ships are less effective without proper upgrades. With wave 2 on the horizon i fear more kitted out ships with combos will wreck plain ships.

Most of my builds center around the theme of self-sufficiency. Normally I also make sure that there isn't a single "rogue element" in the sense that everything must focus around doing the same thing. For instance, not bringing X17 Turbos on two VSDs, then bringing an ACM on a gladiator. Why limit the effectiveness of redirect, to drill into their hull, only to then include a ship who splashes damage across multiple shield facings?

Usually I construct a basic list by those principles, then I look at it and think about what kind of tactics or builds it would be very weak to. Then I just see if I can adjust something to cover that. pretty simple.

Armada is like lots of other games. Any attempt to set a detailed plan will fail miserably, because the nature of most competitive games require constantly re-evaluating and adapting to changing conditions. This is even the case in a Euro-game like Agricola: "Okay, it's Turn 3. I need to acquire Reed, 3 Wood, Clay, and Stone to achieve Building a Room, Obtaining an Improvement, and have enough food at the end of next turn." What do I pick first this round? What do I pick second if another player picks my first choice? How does the satisfaction of each of my needs also hamper my opponent's plans? How much is this opponent-hampering worth if it delays my own plans?"

Table-top gaming (and board-gaming) is often an exercise in judgment and risk-management more than strategy. Every single turn and every single opportunity for decision-making, a player needs to assess all of the available options and assess which of them is the most valuable to choose now (which also implicitly includes assessment of how valuable options are when deferred). If a player has four ships, when it's their turn to activate a ship, they need to make a judgment about which one to activate now, including the plan on which order to activate the remaining three, but this "plan" will always be open to re-evaluation depending what decisions the enemy player makes and what outcomes occur as the turn unfolds.

Players able to quickly and consistently visualize all of the options--their own and their opponents--and make assessments about them to maximize the expected outcomes will do well, and players who can't or don't do this won't see great results. Some players might be good at visualizing the options, but are not good at eliminating them quickly to arrive at a course of action (the infamous player-type who suffers from "analysis paralysis" and who takes excruciating long times to make decisions when its their turn). Others may not have much of an eye for seeing the tactical-depth of all of the options with their time-dependent differential utility, but these kinds of players don't tend to enjoy games like Armada.

List-building is no different, it requires looking at a huge set of possibilities (your possible lists, opponents' possible lists) and then winnowing down the options until you arrive at a list that presents a set of possibilities you think are overall favorable. With plenty of room for "seasoning," of course (like if you prefer Rebels or Imperials, or if you want to build a list with Nebulon-B because it's your favorite ship, etc.).

I follow a simple process of the following.

1. Choose admiral

2. Build fleet synergy around admiral abilities

3. Choose objectives that suit both

4. Evaluate fleet effectiveness against predicted meta

5. Adjust fleet i.e initiative, upgrades, squadrons etc

I usually start with the formation I intend to fly. The game is too short at only 6 turns to not have a plan goIng in. Now, that plan has flexibility built in. You adjust it based on the situation at hand, but having a plan at the start typically outs your opponent in the position of reacting to you.

So, for me it would go,something like this:

1. Formation

2. Select suitable, compimentary core ships.

3. Select appropriate admiral

4. Select support ships and squadrons

5. Choose upgrades based on role

6. Finalize objectives

Then play test and tweak.

Honestly, after the first game, it was just a matter of what I liked and what I didn't. Then, I try to take my tournament experience and take things I liked from there. And honestly, if I have success, I tend to stick with that build.

I like stable, flexible fleets. I'm not a big fan of super glass cannon or gimmicky setups.

So long as the combinations you're planning on bringing can stand on their own, I don't see the harm. Sure, Overload Pulse + Avenger is pretty sweet. It can be difficult to get going (based on activation order, both ships being able to attack the same thing in one turn, both ships being alive, etc.) but the important thing to keep in mind is that Overload Pulse and Avenger are each useful on their own. Needing to dump all your defense tokens on a piddly Raider attack is bad. Needing to worry about whether or not to spend your defense token before taking a walloping from Avenger later in the turn is also pretty good. They're just better together is all.

Often I'll start with some shtick or combo or outright cheesy idea I have, then I'll try building a fleet around it. After having built enough fleets, you start to recognize which of your past ideas would work well in conjunction with this one, so you can fit some other pieces together. Then it's just a matter of iteration and refinement:

Can this handle a bomber list?

Will I get mauled by an all ship list?

Do I have an obvious weakness, and can I mitigate it tactically or do I need to adjust?

Can I make minor adjustments to optimize for one or more of my objectives? Alternatively, should I reassess my objectives?

Mine, sinple. Despite playing Imperials only thus far, I plan it as such -

1) Squadron centric or ship centric task force? For squadron centric, proceed to A. For ship centric, go to 2.

A - Jam up the squadron points with Rhymer and his men.

B - Adjust squadron composition to fit in as many Fel and his merry band of circus performers.

C - Any extra points left? Fill up with TIE Fi

D - Include 1 VSD I with 1 or no upgrades.

E - Bring GSD I (the one that allows you to move after your first shoot) with ACM

F - See if you can fit in another GSD I

I actually managed to bring x4 TIE Bomb+Rhymer and x4 TIE In+Fel together with VSD I and x2 titled GSD+ACM under Screed. Pretty much obliterated my cousin who had x2 VSD I, GSD I, space guppy, Vader, Interceptor and bomber squadrons.

My fighters tore his space guppy apart and he offered a surrender.

2 - Jam 2 GSD I with both titles and ACM

3 - Throw in Screed

4 - Throw in a 1 or 2 VSD with some upgrades of your choice if any

5 - Decide if you want squadrons or not. If yes, you're better off with Fel's Flying Circus or TIE Fi

Since I'm usually in my GSD, I pretty much build my main strike around my GSD. VSDs are just there as cannon fodder.

As you have noticed, I pretty much centre around the firepower HARDWARE. Unlike my sister, she centres it around the HEARTWARE (gunnery teams etc). More often than not, HEARTWARE triumphs over HARDWARE.

Whats your experience (i care not for your untable-tested theory) about how much planning your list has?

Have you been able to execute the plan for the most part? As I'm seeing that less games involve shambling the plans.

How much can you brute force your way through a Battle Plan A?

Have to go with the Moltke-Doctrin (often mistaken for a law of murphy, which it is not..): "no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force." or put more common, no plan survives beyond first contact with the enemy.

The lists do have a lot of planning, but the most common and obvious combinations are easily seen by any half-sentient player. As all your upgrade and shipcards lie open there is not much brainpower needed for your enemy to grasp the basic plan which you try to follow, and same goes for your understanding of his basic tactic. So from turn 1 onwards, it all centers around your last question, how much can you brute force your way through a battle plan? Well, depends. Your plan made sense on the papers, but might need some alteration the moment you become aware of your enemies plan. If your basic plan is still valid and not totally countered by what your enemy brought, then it all comes down to the dance of six turns, and from my personal experience as long as both players are more or less equal in understanding the game (hate the word "skill"), both will have to deviate from their plans as the most obvious tricks and combos are countered which forces them to find different uses..

Whats your experience (i care not for your untable-tested theory) about how much planning your list has?

Have you been able to execute the plan for the most part? As I'm seeing that less games involve shambling the plans.

How much can you brute force your way through a Battle Plan A?

Have to go with the Moltke-Doctrin (often mistaken for a law of murphy, which it is not..): "no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force." or put more common, no plan survives beyond first contact with the enemy.

The lists do have a lot of planning, but the most common and obvious combinations are easily seen by any half-sentient player. As all your upgrade and shipcards lie open there is not much brainpower needed for your enemy to grasp the basic plan which you try to follow, and same goes for your understanding of his basic tactic. So from turn 1 onwards, it all centers around your last question, how much can you brute force your way through a battle plan? Well, depends. Your plan made sense on the papers, but might need some alteration the moment you become aware of your enemies plan. If your basic plan is still valid and not totally countered by what your enemy brought, then it all comes down to the dance of six turns, and from my personal experience as long as both players are more or less equal in understanding the game (hate the word "skill"), both will have to deviate from their plans as the most obvious tricks and combos are countered which forces them to find different uses..

I know this axiom crucially well. I've played seriously high amounts of xwing. I've studied the art of war. I've played Starcraft2 for a very long time with extremely low APM.

However, I am literally asking you to evaluate this THEORY, because I am seeing personally TABLE EVIDENCE that this is not true.

My opponents plans usually go very well to the critical first true attack pass (which is where he planned up to). This is technically the first encounter of the main hostile force. Unfortuniately, that turn usually decides our fate. Either I win or he wins due to damage sustained.

(If I activated a counter plan well enough, it keeps me alive to scrap through the rest).

His plans were extremely repeatably executable even though they were intricate to a time point of extreme effectiveness.

Therefore, I posit the question of how much can you forcibly push your plan through.

--

I like to keep it simple and for some reason if i take upgrades i want the same ones on all my ships.

The plus side: all my ships are usually vanilla, i can activate in any order i need to take advantage of any situation. The lack of upgrades or uniformity makes it easier to use, great for endurance at tournaments. Since my ships are usually naked, opponents get less points for offing one. Having more ships is awesome

The negatives: ships are less effective without proper upgrades. With wave 2 on the horizon i fear more kitted out ships with combos will wreck plain ships.

Simple ships imo are going to be a bad idea wave2. The combos mess you up far too much.

---

To AllWingsStandBy: In other games I feel there can be far more deviating options. Let's look at a BUILD with very little option into the gameplay:

3AF Gunnery Team Ackbar Congo Line. In a line.

You HAVE to activate in order. You can't usually go out of turn from bumping or from obstructing yourself on the next shot.

You also can't split up much. You can't reduce speeds on only 1 ship.

I'm sure concievably there is a sweet spot that lets you move the back ship into a position that is towards your play edge and thus not obstructing your more forward ship, but I haven't found it yet. This theoretical position requires your opponent to come directly at you to keep your shots and thus your damage per turn high enough for the cost of a medium ship like the AF.

After evaluating options, you'll notice there are basically zero instances where you can move out of order if your oppoent plays correctly.

Bumping multiple times for multiple turns will be too much. Losing shots. Too much. There's little room to move anyway usually as battle lines converge.

I just try to stay one step ahead of the meta around me.

Right now that still seems to involve deciding how many squadrons of what sort people tend to bring.

I just try to stay one step ahead of the meta around me.

Right now that still seems to involve deciding how many squadrons of what sort people tend to bring.

I am actually now into this meta and I HATE IT. It really seems to boggle down the game for me. I don't really want to get used to having to use a buttload of fighters simply cuz I play a few people and then get a "disadvantage" against players who use very few or none.

(Whether there is a true disadvantage is still to be seem. I'm not truly confirmed on that or not.)

Want to share your best mass squadron counter plans? =)

I just try to stay one step ahead of the meta around me.

Right now that still seems to involve deciding how many squadrons of what sort people tend to bring.

I am actually now into this meta and I HATE IT. It really seems to boggle down the game for me. I don't really want to get used to having to use a buttload of fighters simply cuz I play a few people and then get a "disadvantage" against players who use very few or none.

(Whether there is a true disadvantage is still to be seem. I'm not truly confirmed on that or not.)

Want to share your best mass squadron counter plans? =)

The only way I see it is to throw in fighters into the fray

Whats your experience (i care not for your untable-tested theory) about how much planning your list has?

Have you been able to execute the plan for the most part? As I'm seeing that less games involve shambling the plans.

How much can you brute force your way through a Battle Plan A?

Have to go with the Moltke-Doctrin (often mistaken for a law of murphy, which it is not..): "no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force." or put more common, no plan survives beyond first contact with the enemy.

The lists do have a lot of planning, but the most common and obvious combinations are easily seen by any half-sentient player. As all your upgrade and shipcards lie open there is not much brainpower needed for your enemy to grasp the basic plan which you try to follow, and same goes for your understanding of his basic tactic. So from turn 1 onwards, it all centers around your last question, how much can you brute force your way through a battle plan? Well, depends. Your plan made sense on the papers, but might need some alteration the moment you become aware of your enemies plan. If your basic plan is still valid and not totally countered by what your enemy brought, then it all comes down to the dance of six turns, and from my personal experience as long as both players are more or less equal in understanding the game (hate the word "skill"), both will have to deviate from their plans as the most obvious tricks and combos are countered which forces them to find different uses..

I know this axiom crucially well. I've played seriously high amounts of xwing. I've studied the art of war. I've played Starcraft2 for a very long time with extremely low APM.

However, I am literally asking you to evaluate this THEORY, because I am seeing personally TABLE EVIDENCE that this is not true.

My opponents plans usually go very well to the critical first true attack pass (which is where he planned up to). This is technically the first encounter of the main hostile force. Unfortuniately, that turn usually decides our fate. Either I win or he wins due to damage sustained.

(If I activated a counter plan well enough, it keeps me alive to scrap through the rest).

His plans were extremely repeatably executable even though they were intricate to a time point of extreme effectiveness.

Therefore, I posit the question of how much can you forcibly push your plan through.

Hm, difficult to bring any table evidence that goes beyond anecdotal stories.. have to admit that I cannot contribute any data beyond my personal feeling that plans usually dont survive very well, unfo. Both players can see the fleets of each other, all upgrades, titles and so on. Meaning, both know 9/10 times which combos are played and how they work best. So from deployment phase (which represents the first encounter for me, as it has great tactical value) you try to position in a way to minimize your opponents ability to get mileage from his combos, while still trying to get the most of yours. Same goes for your enemy, so the plans of both of you already alter the moment you first see your enemies' fleet and setup.

Agree however that this is theory, but I have no idea how to bring up any evidence at this point..

I think of a strategy, trick or something funny I want to try then build on it. once I have worked out my list then I pick my objectives that fit best. I build trying to use every point and never worry about initiative.

in list building, it's often just easier and more effective to not overload on silly combos

basically, in a "plan" you make sure the ship has a very simple and easy to understand role with itself and with the rest of the list

an Independence Mon Cal, for example, is there to throw B-wings around and provide closeish support fire. There is no need to waste time on Talon, especially not when you could use stuff like Boosted Comms to enable the Mon Cal to a far greater degree.

I do notice that a lot of people love to overload the crap out of their ships for some reason

For example, there's Yavaris. She needs two things: an Escort Neb and Yavaris. That's it

for some reason, I see a lot of Raymus (7 point hanger) and sometimes a support team on her for some mind-boggling reason when Yavaris is so stupidly powerful with just the title for a hilariously reasonable cost (1 less than an ACM GSD)

you'll give yourself far less of a headache if you just keep things simple.

for the small ships from Cr-90 to GSD, I basically never go beyond one upgrade (if any!) apart from Salvation or Demolisher who need upgrades to further abuse their titles (Raymus and ACM or ordnance, respectively)

for larger ships, it varies, but the mediums I think aren't worth going overboard on stuff either. At most, they get two upgrades; either a defense mitigating turbo-laser or squadron support feature + a title and/or ECM/projectors (though I personally skipped defensive retrofits in Wave 1 because the best defense is simply not getting shot at close range)

stuff like, Scout Shrimp (gunner team + foresight w/Akbar in the background), Afmk2-A (h9s, Paragon), Afmk2-B (x17s, intel), VSD-1 (dominator) etc.

Now the large ships are great point sinks, to an extent, but you need to be very selective of what you include and why. For example, if you take an ISD-2 to blow the crap out of enemy small ships, you're taking gunnery teams above anything else and you're specializing for that role (outside of the possibly requisite ECM to counter Akbar) and not something like OLP etc.

uhh I think i just start with what i like. For wave2 I am looking at ISDs. Then going well what has worked so far. For me its squadrons. So I kinda went with "well if i can run 5 squadrons easy per isd1, let me only take 10 squadrons". So then I took the ISD1ss with hangar bays, boosted comms, and then my 10 squadrons. After that I went ok what admiral do I want. Well if i go tarkin i need 2 more squadrons or to drop the expanded hangar bays and maybe go to isd2. Or if i go to Motti I can see if its enough for my ISD to possibly limp on 1 more turn to ensure my squadrons get some extra work done. I am not really build for screed. I don't own ozzel yet. Once I get that all sorted out (I settled on motti for early testing). I see if I want some other upgrades, and then look at objectives.

That's been my MO lately as there is a lot of new stuff. In wave1 it was much much more "what is working and how do i get it to jive" So i looked at demolisher gsd with ACMs and engine techs. Then a carrier VSD and a rhymer ball of various TIE fighters and interceptors. It worked really well but it was kind of "take best gsd, add best fight load out, finish with a carrier" type thought process. It was also a bit more crowd sourced through friends.

Things like screed + 2x raiders with OLP, + ISD2 with avenger title (cant spend exhausted defense tokens) sounds really good. it will be super hard to pull off the combo against anything but the mirror match where you are trying to joust anyway. We will see. It will be hard to tell until wave2 is out and everyone is trying to come up with new lists.

Often I will start by asking will this be a fighter heavy or light build? From there if its heavy, I'll come up with a number of points to be shooting for with squads and build around that ship wise. If not, I'll try to only keep enough for 2-4 squads to run as meat shields.

I have to point out that strafing fleets don't have to run exactly line astern (the conga line). The difference between medium and long range is enough to allow staggered ships to have a shot and then move either ship without being forced to collide.

Also it's sometimes worthwhile to deliberately run line abreast with a more robust ship closer to the enemy and expected to receive enemy fire, and the more fragile ships obstructed. It's easier to plan commands if you know which ship is likely receiving the shots, and the better defense can be worth more than the reduced offense.