I definitely consider one squadron 12 fighters.

I just don't care if a single Firespray is more powerful than a TIE Bomber squadron. It's a little goofy when you think about it... But it's a mini wargame, I think I'll handle it.

Besides, I don't think of my Rogues as bounty hunters. Except for Dengar, I suppose, because I use the Ace. The rest are just my fleets military forces. I refitted my ISD to support a taskforce of Firesprays or something. Abstraction is abstraction.

you could always just put one fighter on your squadron base- that might make things a bit more even :/

I just don't care if a single Firespray is more powerful than a TIE Bomber squadron. It's a little goofy when you think about it... But it's a mini wargame, I think I'll handle it.

It's not. But more powerful than three TIE Bombers? Yea, maybe.

I just don't care if a single Firespray is more powerful than a TIE Bomber squadron. It's a little goofy when you think about it... But it's a mini wargame, I think I'll handle it.

It's not. But more powerful than three TIE Bombers? Yea, maybe.

Possibly. Seems reasonable. If that's how people prefer to think of squadrons (as 3) that's great. I prefer 12 (I love the X Wing series, so that's my personal point of reference.)

I just don't get worrying too much about the stat block. I'm pretty sure that the Corvette, by comparison, is even more overgunned by comparison to the ISD than a Firespray is to 12 Bombers. And that's fine, it's an abstract game. No biggie.

Its a bit sad, because it takes the Star Wars appeal and the military fleet charakter a bit out of the game.

I understand that in part. The part on which I would disagree with you is that the setting is about a civil war - asymmetric warfare between a hegemonic encompassing regime and an upstart rebellion, with pretensions of being a state.

In such a setting, there should be irregular craft fitted for war, such as armed freighters. Mon Cal cruisers are supposed to be refitted cruise liners - the fishy Love Boat with cannons.

I imagine that within the Rebellion there would be debates about how regular military they should appear. There would probably be an idealist faction that pretends to be a legitimate state with a uniformed military that separates itself from civilians. The implication would be that the Rebellion would not be a terrorist force that targets civilians, while the Empire does engage in state terrorism against non-combatants.

On the flip side, there would be a more realist Rebel faction that would take for granted the notion that the Rebellion is an irregular force and it can't afford to play by the rules or regular militaries. Anyway, those are my speculation - maybe the upcoming movie Rogue One might explore that angle.

However, the point is: I have no problem with upgraded civilian craft in Armada.

Where I agree with you is how 'squadrons' represent a greater number of military craft and bases of YV-666s and YT-1300s seem represent just one at a time. Such single vessels should not in any way be capable of standing toe-to-toe with specialized military fighters.

I just don't care if a single Firespray is more powerful than a TIE Bomber squadron. It's a little goofy when you think about it... But it's a mini wargame, I think I'll handle it.

It's not. But more powerful than three TIE Bombers? Yea, maybe.

Possibly. Seems reasonable. If that's how people prefer to think of squadrons (as 3) that's great. I prefer 12 (I love the X Wing series, so that's my personal point of reference.)

I just don't get worrying too much about the stat block. I'm pretty sure that the Corvette, by comparison, is even more overgunned by comparison to the ISD than a Firespray is to 12 Bombers. And that's fine, it's an abstract game. No biggie.

If you want to think of a squadron base as being a literal squadron, then that's fine, but at least be consistant and compare 12 Bombers to 12 Firesprays

[if you want to think of a squadron base as being a literal squadron, then that's fine, but at least be consistant and compare 12 Bombers to 12 Firesprays

Wouldn't that be 4 Firesprays?

Not gonna argue squadron sizes or what represents what in Armada since the scale is way off anyway. i do doubt all the squads represents 3 ships though and more that ffg uses the standard 3 models for all squadron because it's easier and looks good.

I do agree that just like in X-wing it's much more thematic and fun when there is one of these iconic large ships at each side instead of a rhymer firespray ball or 6 yt-2400 flying around.

But this is a game you can play tournaments in and of course players will pick that works well and I guess you can complain on the game design that they made some ships so powerful when spammed and the thematic choices aren't powerful enough but that happens in every themed game.

Actually the Falcon struggled in a fight with 4 TIE-Fighters which is only 1/3 of a squadron.

However when fully crewed agh the battle of Endor (gunners, pilot, co-pilots) it was a gunship!

[if you want to think of a squadron base as being a literal squadron, then that's fine, but at least be consistant and compare 12 Bombers to 12 Firesprays

Wouldn't that be 4 Firesprays?

Not if your hangup is that the bases are called squadrons, and you're using the definition that a squadron is 12 fighters/bombers/whatever. If you're ok with the fact that a base isn't a literal squadron, then why think that a base with 3 fighters on it represents 12 fighters?

[if you want to think of a squadron base as being a literal squadron, then that's fine, but at least be consistant and compare 12 Bombers to 12 Firesprays

Wouldn't that be 4 Firesprays?

Not if your hangup is that the bases are called squadrons, and you're using the definition that a squadron is 12 fighters/bombers/whatever. If you're ok with the fact that a base isn't a literal squadron, then why think that a base with 3 fighters on it represents 12 fighters?

In this case, I would call a Firespray "squadron" the abstraction by using a game term, rather than it being a literal squadron.

But ultimately I don't much care either way.

Regardless of number of ships represented, some of the generics seem overpowered is, I think the issue at hand.

Regardless of number of ships represented, some of the generics seem overpowered is, I think the issue at hand.

Overpowered how, exactly? I see a good mix of both locally and I'm not exactly sure why I would have purchased Rogues and Villains if it came down to "buy these refitted freighters that aren't very good."

I wasn't stating they were, I was merely restating the issue for discussion :-)

So back when the Transports were released, I made a topic that I fear, that Übertransports could kill some flavour of the game. I argued that its already silly that an armed (sometimes even commercial) transport could withstand or even destroy a whole squadron of something around 10-12 fighters.

That's your mistake, though.

Fighter stands do not represent 10-12 fighters, they represent closer to 3.

If they are three, it makes perfect sense that the Millennium Falcon could destroy a stand or three during the game. Remember in RotJ, when Lando has a fully crewed and fully gunned Falcon, there's a six or seven second long scene in which the Falcon vaporizes three TIE Interceptors. So that seems very thematic and realistic.

If you make the ludicrous assumption* that a fighter stand is like 12 Fighters, than you have to assume the Falcon represents like 4-6 modified freighters.

See Reasoning, for instance, here: Why I Choose to Believe Squadrons are 3 Fighters

Synopsis:

+ In the Battle of Endor, Blue Squadron kills two ISD Star Destroyers. If Blue Squadron was a single Fighter Stand, they'd not even be able to get past an ISD's repair dial even if they were rolling perfectly. If Blue Squadron was four or more fighter stands, it becomes more plausible that they could kill an ISD.

+ If fighter stands were an entire squadron, then a relatively tiny fleet with 10 X-Wings would have something like 120 fighters, which is quadruple what the entire Rebel Alliance was able to throw against the Death Star, and about five times what the entire Resistance could throw against Star Killer base. It's also more than the massed Rebel Fleet could deploy in the Battles of Endor or Coruscant. So why should some little skirmish exchange between a half-dozen ships have substantially more fighters than the most grand engagements in the Galactic Civil War?

+ etc, etc, etc, (read above for the full case)

Once you accept that a fighter stand is about three fighters, so many more things in the game make far more sense, including the relative power between the Millennium Falcon and a fighter stand.

*Of course, all of this is tongue-in-cheek, because I could not care less how many fighters others think are represented by an abstract stand, as long as it's what makes them happiest when they play

NO! Don't make me buy another 4 of each faction's fighter packs to have full hangars on my ships!

Gotta keep in mind that we're just assuming that a squadron base is 12 fighters and a freighter base is 1 ship. Unless I've missed it there hasn't been any confirmation from FFG about what the scale of a base is. Might be literal, with 3 fighters or 1 freighter per base. Or maybe it's a bit more of an abstraction, with a sliding scale depending on the power of the fighters.

It is rather confirmed that its meant to be 12, and a survey showed that most players view them as such. Abstraction is fine an good but in the end we want a certain game and feel and not bricks with stats.

I get the feeling that someone's playing fast and loose with the number a vessels a base represents here.

Are you saying that 1 base of YT2400s is tougher than 4 bases of starfighters (as shown by the miniatures)? Or are you saying that a base represents a squadron, and a squadron is 12 starfighters even if they're not all shown? In which case why aren't you also taking into account that it's a YT2400 squadron?

Because it would make even less sense? It could be nice way to represent, but when civilian freighter are throw in a fray, its hard to belive you can field whole squadron of matching types. Sure you could say its just a mixed bunch whith one ship dominant. But in the end we still have battles that are entirely fought with civilian freigthers. And that takes away the military feeling, even in civial war. Because: Why build military craft at all?

So back when the Transports were released, I made a topic that I fear, that Übertransports could kill some flavour of the game. I argued that its already silly that an armed (sometimes even commercial) transport could withstand or even destroy a whole squadron of something around 10-12 fighters.

That's your mistake, though.

Fighter stands do not represent 10-12 fighters, they represent closer to 3.

If they are three, it makes perfect sense that the Millennium Falcon could destroy a stand or three during the game. Remember in RotJ, when Lando has a fully crewed and fully gunned Falcon, there's a six or seven second long scene in which the Falcon vaporizes three TIE Interceptors. So that seems very thematic and realistic.

If you make the ludicrous assumption* that a fighter stand is like 12 Fighters, than you have to assume the Falcon represents like 4-6 modified freighters.

See Reasoning, for instance, here: Why I Choose to Believe Squadrons are 3 Fighters

Synopsis:

+ In the Battle of Endor, Blue Squadron kills two ISD Star Destroyers. If Blue Squadron was a single Fighter Stand, they'd not even be able to get past an ISD's repair dial even if they were rolling perfectly. If Blue Squadron was four or more fighter stands, it becomes more plausible that they could kill an ISD.

+ If fighter stands were an entire squadron, then a relatively tiny fleet with 10 X-Wings would have something like 120 fighters, which is quadruple what the entire Rebel Alliance was able to throw against the Death Star, and about five times what the entire Resistance could throw against Star Killer base. It's also more than the massed Rebel Fleet could deploy in the Battles of Endor or Coruscant. So why should some little skirmish exchange between a half-dozen ships have substantially more fighters than the most grand engagements in the Galactic Civil War?

+ etc, etc, etc, (read above for the full case)

Once you accept that a fighter stand is about three fighters, so many more things in the game make far more sense, including the relative power between the Millennium Falcon and a fighter stand.

*Of course, all of this is tongue-in-cheek, because I could not care less how many fighters others think are represented by an abstract stand, as long as it's what makes them happiest when they play

However your arguements are flawed or as you would unpolitly state: "ludicrous":

- Nothing of blue squadron is still canon, and if if it is we dont know how they destroyed the ISDs: Plot hole/plot armour or just wrecked ISDs?

- Its even more clear that it would be silly beyond reasoning to build any captial starship if the could be destroyed this easy by a couple of fighters.

- 120 fighters in a tiny fleet? First 10 squadrons are hardly a tiny fleed, espaccally for the Rebels/New Republic. And its pretty established that an ISD field 72 TIEs, not 12. To think a battle between massive Battlecarriers would be a mere 12vs36 fight seems "ludicrous".

- Most Armada battles see more captial ships than we see in any movie. So whats you point again?

Beside that FFG stated that squadrons are meant to represent full squadrons.

As I said before I dont see anything wrong with a (heavy modified, plot armour empored) YT-1300 destroying 3 TIE-fighters here or 3 distracted TIE-Interceptors there. It SHOULD be a good support ship. But fighting against whole squadrons of military fighting craft?

Beside that FFG stated that squadrons are meant to represent full squadrons.

- Citation needed.

Beside that FFG stated that squadrons are meant to represent full squadrons.

- Citation needed.

I dont know it myself anymore, someone quoted it in the old "Ubertransports" topic and it was met with overall approval.

Even if a fighter base were just the 3 models on the base (let alone the fact that they may represent 12) they would severely outgun a non military frieghter with retro fitted targetting equipment and jury rigged quad laser turrets.

You know, the YT and YV 'swarm' thing doesn't bother me much. They're apparently so convertible that I wouldn't be surprised if there was only 1 stock YT-1300 ever made: the floor model at the trade show. All the other ones are chock full of mini fridges, deflector dishes, quad cannons, seat warmers, concussion missile tubes, and carburetors that can run on 'space diesel' for better hyperdrive mileage.

All in all they make up the Corellian equivalent to an outlaw motorcycle gang: they swoop around espousing some 'free' no holds barred lifestyle and run all the decent squadron folks out of town. It's the rebellion, they hire a lot of shady characters with big guns. I'm still at a loss on how they afford fuel, let alone top of the line fighter. So, seeing a motley array of weirdly upgunned freighters is the least of my issues with them.

Now the jumpmaster 5000 on the other hand, well, I hate that thing.

While a freighter swarm isn't really thematic, the good thing is you will pretty much never see this when you play with likeminded starwars enthousiasts. It's also a bit expensive to get so many of the same ship. The firebomb or whatever it's called with 6+ firesprays is thankfully mostly limited to powerplayers in tournaments, and in your local community you can simply seek out players that feel the same way as you. In my WH40k days I once got invited by the founder of a local gaming club to drop by and drink a beer while playing a match at their weekly club evening. Turned out the guy who invited me had tweaked his chaos space marine army to completely counter my well rounded all-comers 'fun' Necron army: everything that could had plasma weapons, and units that were known to be a bit overpowered at the time or specifically very effective vs Necrons were completely maxed out in his list. I played the match, drank some beer, congratulated him on his well earned victory, and never went to that club's gaming evenings again.

Turned out the guy who invited me had tweaked his chaos space marine army to completely counter my well rounded all-comers 'fun' Necron army...

As an aside, one of the best matches of 'X-Wing' I ever had (a few waves ago now) was intentionally to test out my friend's "Anti-Fat-Han" build, where I took a souped-up Millennium Falcon with all the trimmings against his four heavily-loaded TIE Bombers. The theory behind his list was fine: buckets of Cluster Missiles and so forth to throw into the big ship. Except I had taken Expert Handling, one of my favourite "Elite Pilot Talents". Rolling and weaving that freighter out of range of his bombers, and at one point rolling into them in order to finish at less than minimum range of his payload was great fun.

Of course, this was pre-arranged to be a testing ground for his new squadron, so it's a bit different. But I've done the same with 'Armada' as well - arranged with my mates to try specific counters to certain fleet types, or to take particularly powerful lists and see if they can be countered (subtle but important difference). And it can be really good fun - the analysis afterwards is great, if you're so inclined.

However your arguements are flawed or as you would unpolitly state: "ludicrous":

- Nothing of blue squadron is still canon, and if if it is we dont know how they destroyed the ISDs: Plot hole/plot armour or just wrecked ISDs?

- Its even more clear that it would be silly beyond reasoning to build any captial starship if the could be destroyed this easy by a couple of fighters.

- 120 fighters in a tiny fleet? First 10 squadrons are hardly a tiny fleed, espaccally for the Rebels/New Republic. And its pretty established that an ISD field 72 TIEs, not 12. To think a battle between massive Battlecarriers would be a mere 12vs36 fight seems "ludicrous".

- Most Armada battles see more captial ships than we see in any movie. So whats you point again?

Beside that FFG stated that squadrons are meant to represent full squadrons.

As I said before I dont see anything wrong with a (heavy modified, plot armour empored) YT-1300 destroying 3 TIE-fighters here or 3 distracted TIE-Interceptors there. It SHOULD be a good support ship. But fighting against whole squadrons of military fighting craft?

A few things:

--FFG has never officially stated that squadron bases represent anything in particular, despite uncited claims to the contrary

--If the Battle of Endor's "Blue Squadron" is no longer cannon, then neither are an ISD's 76 TIE payload, Screed, MC30s, or Gladiator Star Destroyers, for instance. I think our canon is allowed to draw more broadly than the limited bit Disney has officially ported back into official status.

--Why make capitol ships that could be destroyed by fighters? Hmm, good question, I guess. Except you need capitol ships to carry troops, supplies, and vehicles, and to capture enemy vessels (e.g. tractor beaming the Tantive IV). Also, B-Wings were explicitly designed to be anti-ship bomber craft. Let's not forget fighters were capable of destroying Death Stars, and the Empire/FO built three of them.

--Ten squadrons is not a tiny amount by the Rebellion's standard. We never see their ragtag efforts manage to muster more than a few squadrons in their most pivotal battles. Battle of Yavin = 2-3: Red Squad, Gold Squad, and depending on your sources, Blue Squad. Battle of Hoth = 1: Rogue Squadron (recall they also only have the forces to assign two X-Wings to each Transport. Sure, they may have had a lot of transports, but if they had 150 X-Wings you think they'd have more than two per transport), Battle of Endor = 5 Squads (Gold, Red, Green, Gray, Blue).

--As to the ISDs carry 72 TIE Fighters argument:

(1) By your own standards, I'm really not sure that carrying capacity is canon anymore either. The number has always seemed unrealistically high to me, but even if it's true it doesn't prevent Armada squadrons from being only three fighters. 24 Stands of TIE Fighters fitting aboard one ISD is fine by me. Sure, you couldn't have them all on the table in a game of Armada, but we literally never seen anything near that amount of TIEs scrambled by an ISD in any other source. In the Escape from Hoth, Vader tells his forces to do whatever it takes to capture the Millennium Falcon. This results in the Falcon being pursued by four TIE Fighters, three ISDs, and a handful of TIE Bombers. Why didn't those three ISDs just launch over 200 TIEs if they had that many aboard and in operable order ready to go?

(2) Squadron Value has no necessary correlation to carrying capacity. Squadron Value represents the amount of fighters that can be especially well-coordinated in real time by sensor data and flight-coordinators aboard the ship, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how many fighters can fit aboard the vessel. So if Squadron Stands were three fighters, that would mean an ISD could provide exceptionally strong coordination to 18 TIE Fighters a turn (Squad Value 6 max), which feels fine. There could be a lot of other fighters out there operating more autonomously with standard amounts of data and communication coordination. Alternatively, the CR90 has a Squadron Value of 1, even though its well documented that it's not a carrier (outside of some Wraith Squadron novels which seem to violate all the basic scale and blueprints of the CR90 established elsewhere).

All I'm saying is it's eminently possible and consistent to imagine that Squadron Stands in Armada represent 3 Fighters / 1 Freighter. You may find that unpalatable, but then you can't really complain that 1 YT-1300 is blasting down 36-48 fighters in one battle. That's a consequent of your Squadron Interpretation that is entirely avoided by other interpretations. If you find 3 Fighters a stand unacceptable, than you just have to accept God-Mode freighters (or the equally silly six YT-1300s per stand... "Hey remember when the Falcon had five YT-1300s as wingmen?").

But at the end of the day, we all just have to pick and choose the interpretations that we like best. I'm trying to give you a viable and consistent alternative that would free you from the distress you're feeling over these "God Mode Freighters" on your account.