So has Tom Brady been hanging around the MC 80s, I like the look for the most part, but when placing them next to the Imperial ships, they seem to be deflated. Almost seem like they should be pump up just abit more, when you compare them to the assault frigs and how huge those things look.
MC 80 abit deflated?
I know what you mean, man. I feel the mc80's should be a bit fuller all around.
Yeah the only thing in this game's scale that bothers me is the enormity of the AF.
Yeah the only thing in this game's scale that bothers me is the enormity of the AF.
Of course the Cr90 is muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch worse. And should always have been a flottila.
But otherwise I totally agree.
Yeah the only thing in this game's scale that bothers me is the enormity of the AF.
Of course the Cr90 is muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch worse. And should always have been a flottila.
But otherwise I totally agree.
FFG stated in the basic rule book that they could not use proper scale, and usues the CR90 as the example reason. While I do think the RAF should have been slightly smaller, I can forgive the CR90 as it would have been too small if done to proper scale.
"While I do think the RAF should have been slightly smaller..." Salted Diamond
What do you have against British pilots? 
"While I do think the RAF should have been slightly smaller..." Salted Diamond
What do you have against British pilots?
Trying to think of a good joke, but in Iraq, they were the only air support besides our own that I would trust to call in.
Yeah the only thing in this game's scale that bothers me is the enormity of the AF.
Of course the Cr90 is muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch worse. And should always have been a flottila.
But otherwise I totally agree.
FFG stated in the basic rule book that they could not use proper scale, and usues the CR90 as the example reason. While I do think the RAF should have been slightly smaller, I can forgive the CR90 as it would have been too small if done to proper scale.
Thats how they should have done it.
Thats how they should have done it.
While it looks better next to the other capital ships it looks very off when compared to the fighters. Current scale does ok IMO relative to everything.
Thats how they should have done it.
While it looks better next to the other capital ships it looks very off when compared to the fighters. Current scale does ok IMO relative to everything.
While I think that a better look compared to other capitals is more important, because the fighters are most likley viewed as a token anyway (even more so as the developers think of squadrons as full squadrons of around 12 ships), you can still solve this problem too with tiny fighters from J_Roncho here:
https://www.shapeway...oncho/creations
Edited by DScipio
I didn't know the developers thought that squadrons were anything other than 3 ships- where/when did they say that? Mainly curious myself.
If FFG in the future released alternate ship models like those posted, I would be all over them! (Well, after selling my existing ships...) Something about uniform scale helps the epic-ness of the fleet look, IMO, and I'd rather have that epic feel than have each ship equally detailed.
I suppose I could just buy the shapeways models, but 1. I'm lazy and 2. have way too many official ships anyways.
Are there any pics the tiny fighters actually printed and painted? I feel like they would lose too much detail. Besides that, they would to very hard to identify on the field. I think FFG made fighters about as small as they could without impacting gameplay.
I'd like to see a smaller model of the AF. 3/4 the current scale would look a lot better next to an ISD.
I didn't know the developers thought that squadrons were anything other than 3 ships- where/when did they say that? Mainly curious myself.
Considering the Falcon finds 4 TIEs a fairly difficult challenge in ANH (and in TESB is forced to run from 4 TIEs into an asteroid field to survive) - I'm not sure that having a TIE squadron in Armada be 12 TIEs is all that consistent with the movies.
I think the thought behind squadrons being more than 3 ships comes mostly form 2 places. First, they're called 'squadrons' hence, 12 ships. Second, if they were really supposed to be just one or two ships, then the scale is completely badonkers and immediately replaces the Assault Frigate as the most ridiculously out of scale thing in the game. I think when Wave 5 hits, the Ghost and the Deci MIGHT be more or less an ok scale as a single ship, but everything else is just a representation, like a rader blip that shows the location of the squadron.
I'm not sure if it came specifically from the developers, but I read somewhere that unlike X-Wing (which strives for perfect scale), Armada is a scale more like a tactical display of the battle unfolding. That leaves the 'sliding scale' a perfectly acceptable thing, and it makes sense that squadrons are just a representation of "a bunch of fighters" rather than exactly 3 or 12. Similarly I think the larger squadrons (the YTs, FIrespray, etc) could be one ship, or they could be a handful of ships of that class or one of the ships and a few escorts.
Also, the Falcon ran from four TIEs because that's what we saw on screen. Don't forget you've got potentially 68 more TIEs coming out of the Star Destroyer that was also chasing them.
I didn't know the developers thought that squadrons were anything other than 3 ships- where/when did they say that? Mainly curious myself.
Considering the Falcon finds 4 TIEs a fairly difficult challenge in ANH (and in TESB is forced to run from 4 TIEs into an asteroid field to survive) - I'm not sure that having a TIE squadron in Armada be 12 TIEs is all that consistent with the movies.
In the case of Empire I would suggest that they are fleeing more from the caps than from the TIEs. That and the fact that the caps could launch another 400 TIEs after them.
As for ANH, they do seem to have unreasonable levels of difficulty with a few TIEs when compared to RotJ. I would suggest that it is simply following the usual SciFi convention: Enemies border on invincible when first encountered and are almost unstoppable, but by the end of the season/movie they are mowed down easily with basic weapons and inane tactics. For reference in Star Wars, see also stormtroopers. For references outside of Star Wars, I would say pretty much anything from Battlestar Galactica, or the Borg in Star Trek. Think of how scary the enemies are when first encountered versus later.
I didn't know the developers thought that squadrons were anything other than 3 ships- where/when did they say that? Mainly curious myself.
Considering the Falcon finds 4 TIEs a fairly difficult challenge in ANH (and in TESB is forced to run from 4 TIEs into an asteroid field to survive) - I'm not sure that having a TIE squadron in Armada be 12 TIEs is all that consistent with the movies.
In the case of Empire I would suggest that they are fleeing more from the caps than from the TIEs. That and the fact that the caps could launch another 400 TIEs after them.
As for ANH, they do seem to have unreasonable levels of difficulty with a few TIEs when compared to RotJ. I would suggest that it is simply following the usual SciFi convention: Enemies border on invincible when first encountered and are almost unstoppable, but by the end of the season/movie they are mowed down easily with basic weapons and inane tactics. For reference in Star Wars, see also stormtroopers. For references outside of Star Wars, I would say pretty much anything from Battlestar Galactica, or the Borg in Star Trek. Think of how scary the enemies are when first encountered versus later.
On the same note, that's probably why it's never a good idea to get too hung up on the specifics like why Armada uses the term "squadrons" or why a and ISD just doesn't pop a CR90 by farting in its general direction. Game mechanics, play-ability, and practicality (in the case of the squadron model count and scale) seem to override all other factors.
I think the thought behind squadrons being more than 3 ships comes mostly form 2 places. First, they're called 'squadrons' hence, 12 ships. Second, if they were really supposed to be just one or two ships, then the scale is completely badonkers and immediately replaces the Assault Frigate as the most ridiculously out of scale thing in the game. I think when Wave 5 hits, the Ghost and the Deci MIGHT be more or less an ok scale as a single ship, but everything else is just a representation, like a rader blip that shows the location of the squadron.
I'm not sure if it came specifically from the developers, but I read somewhere that unlike X-Wing (which strives for perfect scale), Armada is a scale more like a tactical display of the battle unfolding. That leaves the 'sliding scale' a perfectly acceptable thing, and it makes sense that squadrons are just a representation of "a bunch of fighters" rather than exactly 3 or 12. Similarly I think the larger squadrons (the YTs, FIrespray, etc) could be one ship, or they could be a handful of ships of that class or one of the ships and a few escorts.
Also, the Falcon ran from four TIEs because that's what we saw on screen. Don't forget you've got potentially 68 more TIEs coming out of the Star Destroyer that was also chasing them.
Which is why the af2 is the real issue here
I think the thought behind squadrons being more than 3 ships comes mostly form 2 places. First, they're called 'squadrons' hence, 12 ships. Second, if they were really supposed to be just one or two ships, then the scale is completely badonkers and immediately replaces the Assault Frigate as the most ridiculously out of scale thing in the game. I think when Wave 5 hits, the Ghost and the Deci MIGHT be more or less an ok scale as a single ship, but everything else is just a representation, like a rader blip that shows the location of the squadron.
I'm not sure if it came specifically from the developers, but I read somewhere that unlike X-Wing (which strives for perfect scale), Armada is a scale more like a tactical display of the battle unfolding. That leaves the 'sliding scale' a perfectly acceptable thing, and it makes sense that squadrons are just a representation of "a bunch of fighters" rather than exactly 3 or 12. Similarly I think the larger squadrons (the YTs, FIrespray, etc) could be one ship, or they could be a handful of ships of that class or one of the ships and a few escorts.
Also, the Falcon ran from four TIEs because that's what we saw on screen. Don't forget you've got potentially 68 more TIEs coming out of the Star Destroyer that was also chasing them.
Which is why the af2 is the real issue here
I got it guys!
Just think of the AFmkII as a giant zeppelin. I suppose painting one steel grey and slapping swastikas on the fins might be a bit offensive... but I must confess I'm tempted to make the Gallant Hindenburg. Special rule: hull 1, when this ship is destroyed, all ships and squadrons at distance 1 suffer 1 damage.
I got it guys!
Just think of the AFmkII as a giant zeppelin. I suppose painting one steel grey and slapping swastikas on the fins might be a bit offensive... but I must confess I'm tempted to make the Gallant Hindenburg. Special rule: hull 1, when this ship is destroyed, all ships and squadrons at distance 1 suffer 1 damage.
Can we first fill it with Bothans and then yell "Oh, the Fur-manity!" ?
Edited by DrasnightaWhich is why the af2 is the real issue here
It's supposed to be 700m long - just under half the length of an ISD, and just under the 900m that is a Victory.
It actually is pretty close to being in scale with those two.
It's the corvettes and the Nebulon B that are the most out of scale, when it comes to capital ships - the rest are all pretty close.
Squadrons in Armada represent either one frieghter or three fighters, as proven here:
Note, "Proven" is not "Proven.".
Justified, perhaps. But not "Proven".
,,,
That came off a little harsh, and I apologise, AllWings...
Its a wonderful written piece, but it unfortunately is just supposition until such time as FFG states exactly what they are, in no unequivocal terms - which, they thusfar, have not done to my reckoning.
Edited by DrasnightaThe Falcon in ANH had and inexperienced crew behind one of the guns with only a 10 second primer for how to use them. As well as the engineer/co-pilot flying.
The Falcon in ESB was heavily damaged prior to the attack on Hoth and never completed repairs.
Neither of these battles is a fair demonstration of the ships potential.
RoTJ has the Falcon in the best shape of the trilogy and with a better trained crew. In this battle it does far better and it is this version that best represents the ship portrayed in Armada..
It's not the length I have an issue with as much as it's girth
That's what she said.