Getting back to the main topic, this model of expansion (releasing campaign sets that offer retrospective updates to existing models) could be used to release new variants of existing ships. With the Victory, for instance, we could see some kind of retrofit model that offers greater speed or manoeuvrability, with adjustments to its arsenal or stats, and certainly at a higher point cost. This would be very much in line with cannon (Victories' engines were updated during the Civil War to correct this issue and enable them to fight in deep space), and would balance out what many feel to be an issue with the Victory.

I'm not sure if this will happen, but certainly if they're planning on releasing other campaigns in a similar format, this is an option they've given themselves.

I was exactly thinking about this too just now !

I actually do like buying upgrade through campaign sets. And to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if FFG is testing the waters for a competitive campaign/league format which would be very very interesting. The problem with tournament is that they don't give context or purpose to upgrades, except for statistical advantage. Themed scenarios within game mechanics (on top of objectives) would be pretty groundbreaking for a standard format. Picture Zombicide campaigns but on a national/worldwide scale.

Can always need more plastic!

I mean, since we got Wave 2, X-Wing has received:

Ghost Expansion Pack

Inquisitor's TIE Expansion Pack

Mist Hunter Expansion Pack

Punishing One Expansion Pack

T-70 X-Wing Expansion Pack

TIE/fo Fighter Expansion Pack

Imperial Veterans Expansion Pack

with these coming in Q3 2016:ARC-170 Expansion Pack

Special Forces TIE Expansion Pack

Protectorate Starfighter Expansion Pack

Shadow Caster Expansion Pack

Heroes of the Resistance Expansion Pack

Ya feel me? Not gonna lie, but I got kinda bored of the meta and desperately craving something new.

Which is fine for a 4 year old game.

You do understand that we need less to get more right? Our 2 waves and 1 campaign box is far more versatility, than X-Wing is getting this year.

We now have 4 new ships, each with maybe a dozen or so different build options and a campaign with new Squadrons, objectives, and a campaign (that every X-Wing only player I know is crying that they want) that also increases the strategic and tactical depth of the game.

You gotta be kidding with your patronizing "you do understand" bull.

Also, you're wrong.

The inclusion of the Ghost actually give Rebels another big ship to play with rather than the Falcon and Dash that has been the meta staple for years.

Inquisitor gives Palp aces another ace which also increases meta diversity.

Punishing One single-handily changed the meta and tournament landscape for months.

The expansions for T-70 gave Integrated Astromech which made T-70s semi-viable for competitive play, and the TIE/fo gave Juke and Omega Leader to add to the ace landscape.

Protectorate Fighter will replace the aging and unused Star Viper while the ARC-170 has amazing upgrades and versatility rivaling the K-Wing.

It doesn't matter that it's a 4-year old game, and that Armada is whatever, you can clearly tell by now which one gets more attention from the design team. That's not OK with me, and for many others its not. There's 1 Armada event here in SoCal for every 10. Weekly gaming sessions are pumped filled with X-Wing. Forums are rampant. The health of the game is not in a good place with this 1 update per year cycle they have going. It's one of the reasons myself and several others have stopped playing, and we were once the biggest proprietors for the game.

Just to point out, this game came out in March 2015. By the time it's a year and a half old, we'll have had four waves and a completely new campaign set. That's a very similar pace of growth to X wing over roughly the same time span (four waves), and that without an additional campaign.

Whether you believe the game is in trouble is another question. But they certainly don't have a "one update per year cycle". I don't have any complaints about the rate of growth, or where the game is heading.

Yes, we will have had four waves (assuming they are out next month, as I understand they are supposed to), and maybe a campaign set by the time it is a year and a half old, but the campaign is set for Q4 this year and year and a half would be Sep 2016. To me it feels like wave one was supposed to be part of the initial release, Wave three and four also feel like they were supposed to be one wave (as a wave of one ship per side just feels like a joke). IF this is the case we would only be on wave two (and that feels about right to me). As I have said before (not sure if this tread or different one), I would like to see a wave every six to eight months, giving us two per year or at least three every two years, so I am not complaining about the rate of growth. I am super excited for the campaign box, but have almost no interest/excitement for wave 3 and 4 (I think they look like the will suck). But I also know that you can not please everyone, so I just have to hope that wave 5+ and/or campaign 2+ will have things that I want/will fit into my fleet.

So wave 5: Quasar-fire and Arquitens?

Don't know. Don't care.

I've got like, 4 Campaigns to plan...

Don't know. Don't care.

I've got like, 4 Campaigns to plan...

I'm with you, man >.<

Indeed, Wave 3 and 4 might have been broken down, perhaps they staggered the cost of launching because people might stagger their purchases. Classic case of case flow management

So wave 5: Quasar-fire and Arquitens?

Oh! Vindicators and the hammerhead corvettes too!

If the planets/systems/locations offer the same costs and benefits to both sides, then I get the impression that this will be a symmetric campaign, where there is effectively a level playing field between the two factions.

That's probably what most players want, and it makes for a more easily balanced game.

But is it Star Wars?

If the planets/systems/locations offer the same costs and benefits to both sides, then I get the impression that this will be a symmetric campaign, where there is effectively a level playing field between the two factions.

That's probably what most players want, and it makes for a more easily balanced game.

But is it Star Wars?

Interesting Thought. If FFG has proven one thing to me it is that they can merge fluff and game play so that their games feel "thematic". I hope they figure out a way to do it here but unfortunately I think Armada has already been designed as a game that requires both sides to be more or less on an equal footing.

I am not sure how they would be able to develop a fun asymmetrical campaign but if any one can my money would be on FFG.

This is a fantastic product. Can't wait to get it - really a whole new product category within this line.

If the planets/systems/locations offer the same costs and benefits to both sides, then I get the impression that this will be a symmetric campaign, where there is effectively a level playing field between the two factions.

That's probably what most players want, and it makes for a more easily balanced game.

But is it Star Wars?

Are the games you play now Star Wars?

If the planets/systems/locations offer the same costs and benefits to both sides, then I get the impression that this will be a symmetric campaign, where there is effectively a level playing field between the two factions.

That's probably what most players want, and it makes for a more easily balanced game.

But is it Star Wars?

Interesting Thought. If FFG has proven one thing to me it is that they can merge fluff and game play so that their games feel "thematic". I hope they figure out a way to do it here but unfortunately I think Armada has already been designed as a game that requires both sides to be more or less on an equal footing.

I am not sure how they would be able to develop a fun asymmetrical campaign but if any one can my money would be on FFG.

Of course, they may write an intro that explains why this particular campaign might be symmetric.

Are the games you play now Star Wars?

The campaign article mentions permeant damage to ships between rounds presumably if they take significant combat damage. Some upgrades can be lost and some hull damage not repaired. Some planetary systems give bonuses to after scenario repairs.

I wonder if repairs conducted within the scenarios from the repair commands will count towards these repairs. If so then we could see a lot of ships plotting repair commands in later turns to help prevent them beginning the next scenario in a damaged state. Some games however (I'm thinking SFB) treat in game repairs as temporary that get removed after the fight when the campaign repair rules then take over.

Can always need more plastic!

I mean, since we got Wave 2, X-Wing has received:

Ghost Expansion Pack

Inquisitor's TIE Expansion Pack

Mist Hunter Expansion Pack

Punishing One Expansion Pack

T-70 X-Wing Expansion Pack

TIE/fo Fighter Expansion Pack

Imperial Veterans Expansion Pack

with these coming in Q3 2016:ARC-170 Expansion Pack

Special Forces TIE Expansion Pack

Protectorate Starfighter Expansion Pack

Shadow Caster Expansion Pack

Heroes of the Resistance Expansion Pack

Ya feel me? Not gonna lie, but I got kinda bored of the meta and desperately craving something new.

Which is fine for a 4 year old game.

You do understand that we need less to get more right? Our 2 waves and 1 campaign box is far more versatility, than X-Wing is getting this year.

We now have 4 new ships, each with maybe a dozen or so different build options and a campaign with new Squadrons, objectives, and a campaign (that every X-Wing only player I know is crying that they want) that also increases the strategic and tactical depth of the game.

You gotta be kidding with your patronizing "you do understand" bull.

Also, you're wrong.

The inclusion of the Ghost actually give Rebels another big ship to play with rather than the Falcon and Dash that has been the meta staple for years.

Inquisitor gives Palp aces another ace which also increases meta diversity.

Punishing One single-handily changed the meta and tournament landscape for months.

The expansions for T-70 gave Integrated Astromech which made T-70s semi-viable for competitive play, and the TIE/fo gave Juke and Omega Leader to add to the ace landscape.

Protectorate Fighter will replace the aging and unused Star Viper while the ARC-170 has amazing upgrades and versatility rivaling the K-Wing.

It doesn't matter that it's a 4-year old game, and that Armada is whatever, you can clearly tell by now which one gets more attention from the design team. That's not OK with me, and for many others its not. There's 1 Armada event here in SoCal for every 10. Weekly gaming sessions are pumped filled with X-Wing. Forums are rampant. The health of the game is not in a good place with this 1 update per year cycle they have going. It's one of the reasons myself and several others have stopped playing, and we were once the biggest proprietors for the game.

So they changed the diversity of the Meta by adding in new ships. That's nice.

Do you understand what adding in just 1 new set of objectives does for us? Not to mention whole new objective mechanics! That not only changes the diversity of Armada it changes theeta completely. Now people have far more to consider when they build their lists.

Let's go with ships now.

The flotillas alone can be many different ships for us. They can be squadrons support, control options, fleet support options, CAP control, and that is the tip of that iceberg.

The Liberty can be many things as well, same with the Interdictor. So where you complain that an older game with a bigger player base is getting more things when in reality they are not. I have no idea what you are talking about.

X-Wing is linear. They add a ship and it can do only a few things. As it should becuase they are usually small squadrons with a rough dedicated purpose.

While in Armada a ships roll can change just on how you command and build your list. This means that 1 ship can be used in 3+ different rolls and it has varying flexibility in each of those rolls through the use of squadrons.

So I don't understand what the issue is. I would rather pay for less ships and get more value put of them than pay for more things that I may or may not ever use.

HERO, what recruiting have you done? In Portland Oregon and Vancouver Washington we have 2 games stores that play Armada twice a week with still growing numbers.

If you want Armada to grow, do more about it. That's the only way it will grow.

What recruiting have I done? Practically the entirety of the SoCal meta, with 6 different gaming clubs across a 50-mile radius. This also includes personal sponsored tournaments, rewards (I have too many ships so I give some away), I also won quite a few tournaments not of my own running so I give prizes away as well, blog support, and social media planned events.

**** man, 2 game stores. Great. It's about the same over here, but we're getting table-scrappings compared to how many players stay with X-Wing.

I mean, from what I see, you're content with FFG's table-scrappings, and is determined to undermine my argument that XYZ changes the meta with your "you do understand" horseshit. I guess I need to educate you that when it comes to games, the earlier metas have a dramatically larger impact than additions later when the game has matured. This is why you see the changes now being more impactful vs. X-Wing, but I thought hit was pretty common sense. I mean, look what the Falcon did to the X-Wing meta early on vs. meta changes now.

But hey, their system can't please everyone. While I think you're too easily pleased, and are content with flotillas, 2 capitals and a bunch of squadrons, I'm not as pleased. This is 2 years running now, and while I think last year was a bit pre-mature to start talking ****, I'm very comfortable doing it now because they've followed the same trend.

The campaign article mentions permeant damage to ships between rounds presumably if they take significant combat damage. Some upgrades can be lost and some hull damage not repaired. Some planetary systems give bonuses to after scenario repairs.

I wonder if repairs conducted within the scenarios from the repair commands will count towards these repairs. If so then we could see a lot of ships plotting repair commands in later turns to help prevent them beginning the next scenario in a damaged state. Some games however (I'm thinking SFB) treat in game repairs as temporary that get removed after the fight when the campaign repair rules then take over.

Are the games you play now Star Wars?

Regarding my conception of the games I playnow, and their starwarsiness, it's a mixed bag. Rebellion, Heroes of the Aturi Cluster, and Imperial Assault in campaign mode: yes. X-Wing and Armada as these are played in our community, much less so.

To be honest, that's the thing ! The media, in our case a 6x3' board with plastic minis and rules on cards in an equal points format of 400 points per side and alternating activations, highly limits what you can and can't do. It's mostly the competitive framework that limits the game balance considerations, because by nature strategy is the search of an unfair advantage while competitive landscapes showcase some balanced framework where the nature of competitive advantage depends more on optimization within a ruleset than creating your own strategy.

You quote Rebellion as a good representation of the GCW, because it's also not a "fair" game (as in extremely asymmetrical). The Rebellion at a strategic level rarely fights the Empire head on with a similar number of similar class of ships. They sabotage, they infiltrate, they hit and run.

Ideally, the greatest tactical and/or strategy game will be a game that is highly asymmetrical, scenario based and capable of providing enough replay value to be used on the long run. Tactical engagements are scenarios by definition, rather than a balanced battle.

@HERO : Take it easy, man. I get it that you love the game and are passionate about it, but you're accomplishing nothing by venting here

But, really, stop giving of yourself and expecting FFG to reward your involvement with promoting the game unless you have directly talked to them. Because they won't. It's not because it's FFG and they're mean (because they're not... well, they are FFG for sure at least), but it's because they have their own plans for Armada. Whether they agree with yours is undetermined, but it's their products, their plans.

As an aside, you are completely free to vote with your wallet if you're unsatisfied by FFG's plans !

If the planets/systems/locations offer the same costs and benefits to both sides, then I get the impression that this will be a symmetric campaign, where there is effectively a level playing field between the two factions.

That's probably what most players want, and it makes for a more easily balanced game.

But is it Star Wars?

A universe where a single volley of normal star fighter weaponry is enough to annihilate a space station dozens of miles across may be asymmetric, but not in the way you mean here.

@HERO : Take it easy, man. I get it that you love the game and are passionate about it, but you're accomplishing nothing by venting here

But, really, stop giving of yourself and expecting FFG to reward your involvement with promoting the game unless you have directly talked to them. Because they won't. It's not because it's FFG and they're mean (because they're not... well, they are FFG for sure at least), but it's because they have their own plans for Armada. Whether they agree with yours is undetermined, but it's their products, their plans.

As an aside, you are completely free to vote with your wallet if you're unsatisfied by FFG's plans !

Well, I already have 2x Wave 3/4 + 2x of this pre-ordered so that kinda settles that doesn't it?

Also, they got quite an earful from me already as flight crew (which I'm withdrawing from because not worth).

During WWII the most dangerous thing to a battleship or aircraft carrier were enemy bombers. The days of broadsides were already long over. I can see the argument that anti-Squadron firepower needs to be augmented but I think it's fair to say that squadrons are and should be dangerous. It's not an accident that Luke was flying an X-Wing at the Battle of Yavin instead of an Assualt Frigate.

The most dangerous thing to a battleship or aircraft carrier was enemy bombers, but what was the most dangerous thing to enemy bombers and their crews? Dedicated flak cannons firing from ground and sea platforms. They wouldn't just circle around fully armed ships, they'd drop their ordnance and get the heck out ASAP. If you look at photos and videos of Pacific theater combat, you'll see that even in open water the sky above Allied and Axis combat fleets was filled with flak, which was one of the leading killers of airmen on both sides.

I'm not sure that that's entirely true. Flak was certainly effective when concentrated and heavy,but it was also surprisingly wasteful in terms of rounds and was only very effective in clear conditions. The most consistent threat to enemy aircraft (bombers included) was fighter cover, hence why so much effort and resources went into establishing aerial dominance.

My point being that, if you're taking WW2 as a precedent (which I think is a fair point of comparison), then the most effective anti-bomber protection should be squadrons.

Actually in the beginning of WW2 most nations ships had compared to later, rather little and not very efficient AA gun outfit, take a standard british 1500 ton destroyer, two quad mounts 50 cals was their main AA guns, short ranged and not enough stopping power for a modern bomber of the time. its four 4,7" main guns could shoot at aircraft but their elevation was rather limited to around 45 degrees.

The American Fletcher class destroyer of around 2100 tons had in the beginning around four 20mm AA guns, perhaps a few watercooled 50 cals and a single quad 1,1" mount, but had five dual purpose 5" 38 cal main guns with high elevation.

As the Fletcher class hull was big enough to take more AA guns, the AA outfit was later increased to five twin mounts of 40mm AA guns and to at least 7x 20mm AA guns. Some even landed a torpedo mount to have two quad 40mm mounts installed.

In 1942 one of the main AA gun mounts on US warships was the Quad 1,1" AA gun, these proved rather unreliable and did not have enough stopping power or range, these was replaced by the before mentioned 40mm AA guns, which proved to be one of the best medium range AA weapon of the war.

In 1942 the 20mm had for its size an acceptable amount of stopping power as a close defence AA weapon, but by 1945 they where considered rather inadequate and where nicknamed "Doorknockers".

In order to have some measure of improved saturating fire, they where installed as twin mounts, but still they where by wars end considered somewhat outdated as a AA weapon.

An improvement for the 5" AA guns (25 cal and 38 cal) was the introduction of the VT proximity fuse for the shells, it had a small Radar/radio transmitter in its tip, that when it got a return signal from passing close to a target, it would detonate the shell, showering the target with shrapnell and debri.

Another development was the installation of more than one Mk51 rangefinder for each 40mm gun mount, this meant that while one target was being engaged and tracked by one Mk51, the next target was already being tracked by a second Mk51, so once the first target had been shot down or chased off, the 40mm gun could quickly switch over to the next target and so on. the Mk51 was even improved by installing a small radar set to it.

In comparison to other nations navies the Japanees navy depended the whole war mostly on their 25mm AA gun of French origin, but despite their ships had more and more of them mounted, they like their 20mm and 1,1" quad counterparts, suffered from lack of stopping power at a sufficient range.

Further more its slower loading time of its clip magazines, lead to a lower rate of fire, compared to the 40mm gun.

The British navy had a 2pdr AA gun in single, quad or 8x gun mounts. Being of 40mm as the Bofors on the US ships, it had the roughly the same stopping power, but having a slower rate of fire and range, it was not as good as the Bofors.

All in all as the war progressed it became more and more dangerous for Aircraft to attack warships, especially when flown by inexpirienced pilots.

US Fleet destroyers had an average of 20 to 25 AA guns of various size, A US Cruiser would have around 50 AA guns, a US Arcraft carrier had around 100 to 120 AA guns and US Battleships could carry up to 150 AA guns.

The USS South Dakota shot down 26 Aircraft during the Air/sea Battle of Santa Cruz in October 1942.

And that is about the end of my Ewok snowball rant

Haha, well, if you're a compulsive buyer then...

But yeah, don't obsess over what FFG should logically do and be annoyed when they are not doing it. Opposedly, think about they could do, and laugh because they're not doing it.

Personally, I find that there's a lot to be said with the concepts of Symmetry and Asymmetry... However, once again, it comes down to the level of conflict you are involving...

Star Wars, on the Galactic, Political Scale... Definitely Asymmetric. Which is perfectly suited for the Rebellion side of things game wise...

But as you break down to smaller and smaller conflicts, it is entirely possible that those conflicts will either end up more and more symmetrical... Or more woefully unsymmetrical...

I mean, the Imperial Fleet is Massive. The Imperial Fleet is overwhelming... But it can't be everywhere at once. Or if it is, then its so scattered as to be unsupportive of itself... This can allow smaller rebel fleets to engage when it is more symmetrical. in the long rung.

OF COURSE. In Warfare, one always must be trying to make things as much in their favour at once before even considering engaging the enemy...

But when you are introducing warfare on smaller and smaller scales, and repeating such engagements as a game... Then there's only so much Asymmetry that is fun...

By all means, have a higher scale thats asymmetric. But for a game (rather than a simulation), keep things symmetrically fair as much as possible.

@Dras : Well, why should they keep things symmetrically fair as much as possible ?

Is it to give both player a chance to win ? Is it the only way to give both players a chance to win ? I actually am amazed by the idea to bring in objectives to compensate for the advantage of going first for example. I can't think of a game that allows you to bring your spin on victory conditions !

And to drop the big salvo: how do we define a game ? Is there such thing as the definition of a game through its mechanics ? Or maybe it's the purpose of the event that determines what a game is ? Does someone have to win in a game ? Is the fact of winning eminently important as part of the enjoyment of a game ? If the enjoyment of the game mainly comes from winning, then doesn't it alienate half of its playerbase in a 1v1 setting each time they play the game ?

And the finishing bomb : Should we assume than an asymmetrical game isn't competitive ? FFG deems that the competitive environment is an asset for the game in terms of sales. Should we instead ask ourselves the question : how is it possible to make a competitive game (aka a game where both players have a chance to win, with an unknown outcome) that has highly asymmetric gameplay elements ?

____

And because I'm probably bipolar : Should we make an asymmetric competitive game ? Like, really, is there a point ? Will it make money ? Will the world be a better place ? So many unknowns !

Well, I call it a Game because the thing says Game on the Box

Netrunner is an example of an asymmetric, competitive game produced by FFG.