I had a chance to mull over the original article a bit. And the more I think about it, the more I disagree with the article. The whole mechanism of squadron command doesn't represent a single pilot like Luke blasting away with his lasers (durrrrr), it represents an entire squadron bouncing another squadron, and getting their shots in due to better positioning.

From what I can see in the movies the old Mk. I eyeball is the main sensor for the snub fighters ("Pick up your visual scanning"), so it's not too much of a stretch that for a squadron to efficiently bounce another squadron effectively, they need some direction from a ship or ground controller. A squadron can of course engage another squadron on its own, but it probably won't be in as good a position...thus they engage the enemy, but don't necessarily get their "killing shots" in right away.

Now I completely disagree that fighter squadrons need to have squadron commands to operate effectively. With the exception of the turn in which they engage (the "bounce"), a squadron command doesn't actually add any extra attacks. What it does is it lets the squadron shoot first which is logical if you have support (think about modern day fighters - the side with an AWACS is going to get the drop in the side that doesn't).

But I've had plenty of games where I've sent my fighters into squadron combat without using squadron commands. They still do their job job well which is to tie up enemy squadrons in engagement. They get to shoot the turn after, on their own. Or my Bwings fly into attack position on the nose of a VSD. The next three turns they bomb the heck out of the ship all without any squadron commands.

Now if you find your squadrons out of the fight because they're positioned badly, you have no one but your own flying to blame. If your squadrons are getting beat up because your opponent is issuing squadron commands, then realize they're not issuing other types of commands, and exploit that!

The game doesn't punish players for bringing squadrons. It punishes players who bring them and don't have enough practice using them. That's frustrating of course, but keep practicing. I played through all of wave 1 with squadrons, and it's finally paying off. My squadron heavy fleets issue maybe 15-20% of their commands as squadron commands - max. Usually in turns 1-3 only. The "bounce" is key. Then they fly themselves.

No one is saying “cut the chatter Red Two” because everyone is too busy waiting for orders from capital ships. Why do Imperials have to take mercenaries in their fleets if they want a squadron to move and attack? No TIEs have Rouge? Is that because Boba Fett is a better star pilot than Darth Vader?

I'm 100% with you.

Squadrons are fine. But they don't feel like Star Wars to me, and that's a real problem.

I think that pilots and squadrons oc follow orders, hard to see that Wedge just goes rogue without having an order to do so. Armada feels right in almost all things, and using fighters is, as has been pointed out here, a skill that can differentiate. And letting fighters off the leash indiscriminately would break the game, I think, too powerful.

Nometheless, I would be in favor of one or two changes. One is making use of higher speed in that squadrons, or just specific squadrons with a key word interceptor, can automatically intercept squadrons with a lower speed when they move by within range 1 or so in whatever phase, and stop them. There was the counter argument that space is three dimensional, and that is certainly true. But the gaming mat isnt

Title cards, without changing the mechanics, also seem fun and would certainly be very thematic. They just should not make generic squadrons useless, that'd be a bad thing.

All in all, Armada doesnt frustate me in any aspect. I am looking forward to having 800 point battles

You cannot capture in rules every aspect that in our heads make SW. But I certainly cannot blame anyone who has such ideas

Really, Armada is Star Destroyer the game. It's in everything from the upgrade iconography to the Imperial being the most expensive and terrifying piece in the game. If Fighters are being flashier than capital ships, then you're not achieving what Armada set out to be.

Armada is like all the pulled-back shots where fighters are dots next to the grand capital ships doing their thing.

I hate to be that guy, but as I've noted before only TWO of those shots existed in the entire original trilogy (the opening scene in Star Wars and a brief fight between a Nebulon-B and a Star Destroyer as fighters flew betwwen). We didn't see more outside of video games until Revenge of the Sith and the Clone Wars cartoons.

The A-Wings from yesterdays Worlds event are a prime example of how powerful fighters can be in the ship phase, but they still feel tacked on in the squadron phase unless they have the Rogue keyword. There's nothing wrong about trying to fix that. Fighters should be a relevant threat for every phase of the game, not just the ones where ships are focusing on them to the detriment of all other functions. Fighters can have limited autonomy and still require capital ships to really win the dedicated fighter war. Capital ship activation makes fighters extremely powerful and gives them a massive edge in activation order over other squadrons in the Squadron phase.

You know what I'd do? I'd simply change the squadron rules to say that ace pilots get a squadron command token at the start of each round which they may use to activate any friendly squadron at Distance 1, including themselves. This would make squadron leaders like Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Wedge, Tycho, Howlrunner etc. able to function a bit better than regular pilots and make them a useful addition to the command structure itself.

Money issues? You think they are going to catalog an entire war for you?

I'm sorry, I don't know if you meant to respond to someone else or if something got messed up on the post, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

He's explaining why there were only 2 such shots of capital ship combat in the originals. They couldn't afford to zoom out and display every capital engagement in the war just so you feel they actually happened. Which perfectly explains why we see them more in the prequels, CGI became a thing and it was in the budget. And why the Clone Wars cartoons are filled with them, it's 100% animated and as such is even more in budget.

Star Trek had the same thing happen over the decades, compare a space battle in TOS with late in the Dominion war. Budgets change, technology changes, crowd expectations change, but that doesn't mean the battles never happened just because they couldn't be shown on screen.

This idea to shift importance back to fighters makes me think, "Why are they trying to make this game more like X-Wing?" The purpose of Armada is still the capital ship battle. For those who have wanted to push around Star Destroyers in our own game, this is our chance. In this universe fighters are little insignificant gnats that are only dangerous in number or when someone important is leading them.

Most of the time your concerns are what the big ships are armed with. This is a universe where Ackbar, Tarkin, Piett, and maybe someday Thrawn, are the major players. Antilles, Skywalker, and the rest can have their day in X-Wing where fighters are the most important thing in the universe.

Basically as long as Imperial Star Destroyers are feared and are capable of swatting spaceships like insects (which they do quite well), I'm happy. From here on out the game is now about new escorts and new targets for my Imperial.

Star Wars pilot lore aside, I think fully sticking to the pilot interactions is irrelevant in Armada. The planes are just there as pieces on the chess board for me to command around

Look I just want my heroes to feel heroic. Mechanically they are fine right now. But the OP brings up several great points that I agree with. Upgrade cards with point costs may be a good way to do it. Would a 40 point Luke be a good idea? Hell no, but it sure would be fun on occasion

Oh, and I just realized OP is from the same website that brought us the "Heroes of the Aturi Cluster" Campaign for X-Wing. When can we expect to see the Armada version?

Star Destroyers are no less important than TIE Fighters in Star Wars. That's just our human bias trying to make hierarchies out of unlike things. The steering wheel is as important as the engine. Everybody talks about the engine but the car won't run without either part.

The fact that Armada chooses to focus on capital ships does not make it any less Star Wars than X-Wing.

I've used squadrons extensively since starting to play Armada and IMO, they work well in the game.

It's been said multiple times in this thread that Armada is a capital ship game - it's all about the Imperial triangles trying to stamp out the plucky rebels This is something that I agree with 100% and think the squadron mechanics support this:

For example, if you are an admiral (imagine yourself as Dodonna) who understands what can be achieved with a well co-ordinated squadron assault that acts in concert with the capital ships, then they act as a force multiplier.

On the other hand if if they are left to fend for themselves, then they do lose relevance and become individual gnats trying to hurt an elephant They are still of benefit, but only if you have pre-positioned them.

All that said, my own suggestion for "improving" how squadrons are used could be stay within the games mechanics and introduce a "squadron wing" card. This would essentially be a collection of squadrons that can be issued orders in the same way as a ship - or maybe allow you to group squadrons together to form a Wing?

Anyway, once they are considered to be a single unit, then they all have to follow the set order. Maybe give them a 3 order stack to reflect them executing a pre-determined plan and the difficulty of changing that on the fly across multiple pilots?

Add me firmly into the Squadron Upgrade Card camp.

Any claim that squadron commands are essential all the time is 110% untrue. It just shows a lack of practice (and in the age of boosted comms it should be even easier to plan how/when you need to be in range again).

Examples to follow:

My second to last game (300) I was Imperial, flying 3 TIEs for minimal CAP. Using exactly 0 squadron commands I tied up a much superior enemy fighter force by A) squatting on the station and then B) sending them forth to engage enemy squadrons just when I needed it the most. They died over the course of 2 rounds, but did their job.

My last game (400, again Imp) I had a mini-Rhymer, plus some fighters, incl. Vader+Fel. I used exactly 1 squadron command during that game to tie up his entire fighter force AND get a few potshots at his flagship. Hell, I deliberately placed Rhymer and his lads OUTSIDE OF COMMAND RANGE, so as to trick my opponent into thinking I didn't have a squadron command ready. So he came forward with his own squadrons...and I pounced on him with Vader+Fel, killing one Advanced outright and engaging the bulk for his fighter force. If the game had gone on I MIGHT have needed a squadron command from ONE of my Vics on Round 5 to re-position. MIGHT.

Sailing isn't always this smooth of course, but it goes to show that with some experience and planning a few key commands can go a LONG way (incidentally I think this is why Rogue isn't all that expensive, just a couple of points or three).

That said: I'd LOVE to see squadron upgrades. And I really wish they had given all squadrons the rogue ability (and made the squadron command work in another manner, as a booster perhaps?) from the get-go, but that's water under the bridge, so I see no point in arguing about it.

Regarding the recurring argument that this is a capital ship game, and the emphasis is on the capital ships;

Every single capital ship engagement in the Star Wars universe involves fighters. Maybe I'm wrong, and theres some EU engagement I'm missing, but I don't believe I am. So, the obvious counter argument, at least in my eyes, is that a ships fighter complement is an essential component of capturing the capital ship combat.

That said, I actually think fighters are just fine as is, and while I like the idea of fighter upgrades in theory, I don't see a real need for any rule changes on the squadron front. It's just that particular point has been niggling at me.

You made some good points, but also some I cant agree on.

You are just right, that the supertransports are just too good. And it feels strange that a single YT-1300 can take on a full squadron of military fighters, even when its lead by the best military pilots of the galaxy.

However I disagree that squadrons should or could lead themselves. Thats against any military logic and just impossible. Sure the may have an idea or valuable recon for the command. But they are in a fight and a squadron leader will be busy enough pushing his squadron through a dogfight, its just impossbile for him to command anything else. Take Star Wars: Rebellion (PC-Game): Every fleet could assign a dedicated FIghter commander to boost the command of the fighters. The capitals have the manpower, the equipment and the overview... and the calm to command the fighters. THe leading ship would even command the smaller escort capitals.

Regarding the recurring argument that this is a capital ship game, and the emphasis is on the capital ships;

Every single capital ship engagement in the Star Wars universe involves fighters. Maybe I'm wrong, and theres some EU engagement I'm missing, but I don't believe I am. So, the obvious counter argument, at least in my eyes, is that a ships fighter complement is an essential component of capturing the capital ship combat.

That said, I actually think fighters are just fine as is, and while I like the idea of fighter upgrades in theory, I don't see a real need for any rule changes on the squadron front. It's just that particular point has been niggling at me.

Well not the first one (opening of a New Hope, Tantive and Devastator). Although to be fair, if a counselor's ship is fleeing a star destroyer, does that even count as an engagement?

But your point is spot-on.

Hi,

Theme??? Ther is chatter between the squadrons, but since every base is one squadron the chatter is between the fighters of one base.

And don`t imagine the squadrons just standing still and waiting for orders. When a squadron does`nt move, it is manouevering around one spot and not waiting for orders but waiting for coordination.

This means squadrons are NOT minefileds as i read in other topics, but were send on intercept course.

For me the "thme" is not broken ad all, i see a lot of narrative stuff in the squadrons.

Greetings

H

Every single capital ship engagement in the Star Wars universe involves fighters. Maybe I'm wrong, and theres some EU engagement I'm missing, but I don't believe I am. So, the obvious counter argument, at least in my eyes, is that a ships fighter complement is an essential component of capturing the capital ship combat.

That said, I actually think fighters are just fine as is, and while I like the idea of fighter upgrades in theory, I don't see a real need for any rule changes on the squadron front. It's just that particular point has been niggling at me.

Most naval battles in WWII involved fighters, it was still the carriers that matterd and commanded.

I think the problem that people that have a problem with the fighters is this: They don't always get to move and shoot and they feel this does not make since or fit in with the independent nature of fighters. Just why would a fighter group need a command to be able to fly and shoot at the same time? Now needing a command for moving and shooting out of phase makes since, but moving then not be able to shoot or not moving to get to shoot because no one told you to, really does not make any since at all for the very nature of fighters is to do just that.

just my out look on why this keeps coming up

I think the problem that people that have a problem with the fighters is this: They don't always get to move and shoot and they feel this does not make since or fit in with the independent nature of fighters. Just why would a fighter group need a command to be able to fly and shoot at the same time? Now needing a command for moving and shooting out of phase makes since, but moving then not be able to shoot or not moving to get to shoot because no one told you to, really does not make any since at all for the very nature of fighters is to do just that.

just my out look on why this keeps coming up

And it's been explained, I-don't-know-how-many times.

We are not talking about *one* pilot in *one* fighter with *one* target over a short distance.

We're talking about a *squadron* of pilots in a *squadron* of fighters with *numerous* potential targets over *massive* distances.

Go play Elite: Dangerous for a few hours and tell me how simple a task it is to get more than five people to move in any sort of cohesive formation across any reasonable distance.

Without external support (not just commands, but scanner data, telemetry, targeting information) it makes perfect sense that in the time an Armada round represents (a few minutes) a squadron could only accomplish either moving from one position to another or executing an attack run at a target of opportunity.

Every single capital ship engagement in the Star Wars universe involves fighters. Maybe I'm wrong, and theres some EU engagement I'm missing, but I don't believe I am. So, the obvious counter argument, at least in my eyes, is that a ships fighter complement is an essential component of capturing the capital ship combat.

That said, I actually think fighters are just fine as is, and while I like the idea of fighter upgrades in theory, I don't see a real need for any rule changes on the squadron front. It's just that particular point has been niggling at me.

Most naval battles in WWII involved fighters, it was still the carriers that matterd and commanded.

Because without them, YOU HAD NO FIGHTERS. The value of a carrier is that it carries fighters. It is literally their reason for being.

People are complaining about squadron combat because they feel as constituted, there is no reason to take fighters, and this hurts the immersion and fantasy fulfillment value of the game.

Again, for the record, I like squadrons as is.

I think the problem that people that have a problem with the fighters is this: They don't always get to move and shoot and they feel this does not make since or fit in with the independent nature of fighters. Just why would a fighter group need a command to be able to fly and shoot at the same time? Now needing a command for moving and shooting out of phase makes since, but moving then not be able to shoot or not moving to get to shoot because no one told you to, really does not make any since at all for the very nature of fighters is to do just that.

just my out look on why this keeps coming up

Yup. This. Exactly.

It confused me no end in the beginning.

On one of my first games I had 3 X-wings get in behind a Vic... I felt really clever, only 1 shield there... and they couldn't even fly after the bastard!

Now I'm no longer confused. I understand the mechanics and have learned to appreciate the flow of the game. Nothing odd to be found here. Move along

"And it's been explained, I-don't-know-how-many times."

This does not make everyone like it and a lot of people just don't like it and that is why it keeps coming up. you can explain it till your blue and there will be people that just will never like it. because it will never make any since to them.

"And it's been explained, I-don't-know-how-many times."

This does not make everyone like it and a lot of people just don't like it and that is why it keeps coming up. you can explain it till your blue and there will be people that just will never like it. because it will never make any since to them.

Well then we're not talking about a thematic issue, we're talking about a preferential issue.

Now, I normally steer QUITE clear of the ol "If you don't like it you can GIT OUT" mentality but, in this case, if you don't like it, go play X-Wing.

X-Wing is EXACTLY what these people describe wanting, and I have no idea why they aren't playing it.

You can even fight Raiders and (pretty soon) Gozanti carriers.

I get the sense that most people who have this problem are coming to Armada from and X-wing background, and want their squadrons to do X-wingy things. Is this a valid assessment?

I've played only a little x-wing, so not really.

I'd like for squadrons to be independent, but stronger if commanded... And guess what? They are. Once you wrap your head around it, things work as intended.