This is an idea I am toying with. Imperial squadrons don't have hyperdrive capabilities so would it be cool, thematically speaking, if the empire could only field as many squadrons as their squardron value allows?
So, for example, an ISD, VSD, Gladiator list would have a maximum squadron potential of 9 (4+3+2) and they would need to be deployed within distance 2 of their motherships at the beginning of the game.
Or would that mess up the imperial fighter strategy far too much? 
What about brights and villains?
Tie advanced have hyperdrives as well. Should you be able to add those above and beyond the hangar capacity?
What about firesprays, agressors, and the other larger ships that have hyperdrives?
His optional would only affect TIE Fighters, TIE Interceptors, TIE Bombers. All other imperial squadrons have hyperdrives.
Now, maybe in some kind of custom extended campaign, you could try something where any squadrons need a mothership.
Yah, I forgot about the hypercapable Tie Advanced (and Defender) and the Villains.
Besides, don't forget that this value isn't représentative of the carried squadrons, just the number each ship can effectively coordinate any time 
I think the ruling is find the way it is, one could always limit oneself to the squadron values on the ship though !
its an interesting idea for a campaign, but doesnt need to be imperial only, whilst rebel fighters have hyperdrives, they have a limited amount of fuel and pilots need time out of the cockpit to properly rest to be combat ready, i like the idea of each ship having to deploy "its own" fighters up to its squadron value which would make for more interesting deployment
In my campaign system, I was toying with the idea that a fleet could have a number of fighters equal to fleet's total squadron rating + fleet's total command rating, as opposed to the 1-third limit rule.
Plus the squadron level is not an accurate representation of the squadrons carried on a ship.
examples:
ISD carries 6 squadrons/ squadron level 4
Gozanti carries 4 TIEs now if you say a flotilla is 3 ships thats one squadron / squadron level 2
so I don't see this working
This game takes a lot of liberties with scale anyway or the fighters would have to be the size of ants.
I think it would be fun to have each ship deploy "its fighters". It certainly would add variety to the strategies employed as a huge Rhymerball would have to assemble first
Might try that out in one of our upcoming games.
This game takes a lot of liberties with scale anyway or the fighters would have to be the size of ants.
I think it would be fun to have each ship deploy "its fighters". It certainly would add variety to the strategies employed as a huge Rhymerball would have to assemble first
Might try that out in one of our upcoming games.
You mean like that rapid launch card in the Pelta?
Can't wait for the reveal!
I still like the house rule that both fleets get their hanger value in basic fighters (first pack) for free. named fighters and other things like R&V cost as marked.
Plus the squadron level is not an accurate representation of the squadrons carried on a ship.
examples:
ISD carries 6 squadrons/ squadron level 4
Gozanti carries 4 TIEs now if you say a flotilla is 3 ships thats one squadron / squadron level 2
so I don't see this working
And this also brings up the discussion of is each base a squadron, or a flight? Some say that they are called squadrons so they have to be a squadron, where others say that the game is called Armada but we never field an armada so they are just terms used by the game company that sound cool. But if you come down on the side that says they are flights but were playing someone who said they were squadrons you show up with 27 bases (in the example) and they think you should only be able to have nine.
Plus the squadron level is not an accurate representation of the squadrons carried on a ship.
examples:
ISD carries 6 squadrons/ squadron level 4
Gozanti carries 4 TIEs now if you say a flotilla is 3 ships thats one squadron / squadron level 2
so I don't see this working
And this also brings up the discussion of is each base a squadron, or a flight? Some say that they are called squadrons so they have to be a squadron, where others say that the game is called Armada but we never field an armada so they are just terms used by the game company that sound cool. But if you come down on the side that says they are flights but were playing someone who said they were squadrons you show up with 27 bases (in the example) and they think you should only be able to have nine.
In the illustrations (artworks) you only see 3 - 4 fighters at a time in a single formation. So this could be an indication that the squadrons are flights only. This would also fit to the squadron value of Gozantis. But going down this rabbit hole would lead to the assumption that an ISD would need a squadron value of about 15. And for a proper representation of the ISDs firepower about 20 red and 20 blue dice only for the front arc. At the end it doesn't matter - call it balancing. Its a game after all - and not a simulation.
Edited by TheRealStarkiller
Plus the squadron level is not an accurate representation of the squadrons carried on a ship.
examples:
ISD carries 6 squadrons/ squadron level 4
Gozanti carries 4 TIEs now if you say a flotilla is 3 ships thats one squadron / squadron level 2
so I don't see this working
And this also brings up the discussion of is each base a squadron, or a flight? Some say that they are called squadrons so they have to be a squadron, where others say that the game is called Armada but we never field an armada so they are just terms used by the game company that sound cool. But if you come down on the side that says they are flights but were playing someone who said they were squadrons you show up with 27 bases (in the example) and they think you should only be able to have nine.
In the illustrations (artworks) you only see 3 - 4 fighters at a time in a single formation. So this could be an indication that the squadrons are flights only. This would also fit to the squadron value of Gozantis. But going down this rabbit hole would lead to the assumption that an ISD would need a squadron value of about 15. And for a proper representation of the ISDs firepower about 20 red and 20 blue dice only for the front arc. At the end it doesn't matter - call it balancing. Its a game after all - and not a simulation.
is limited and even the rebels need carrier support for longer distances to refuel their fighters.
Just playing devils advocate here, but the ISD would only need a Squadron Value of 15 if you think that they would be commanding most of them all the time. If you are just saying that they only command a part at a time then the Squadron Value is fine.
Plus the squadron level is not an accurate representation of the squadrons carried on a ship.
examples:
ISD carries 6 squadrons/ squadron level 4
Gozanti carries 4 TIEs now if you say a flotilla is 3 ships thats one squadron / squadron level 2
so I don't see this working
And this also brings up the discussion of is each base a squadron, or a flight? Some say that they are called squadrons so they have to be a squadron, where others say that the game is called Armada but we never field an armada so they are just terms used by the game company that sound cool. But if you come down on the side that says they are flights but were playing someone who said they were squadrons you show up with 27 bases (in the example) and they think you should only be able to have nine.
A one time poll showed that 4:1 players think that a squadron is a .... sqaudron. So ~12 fighterts not 3 like on the stand. It makes sense too because Star Wars is a fighter inspried game and it should be about siginificant engangements. And if 3-9 Bombers (not 12-36) could pose a real threat to any capital ship, no fool would still build capital ships (other than pure carriers).
I think it fine now. Because imperial ships mostly have such a large carring capacitiy, that we hardly see a game where the imperial player has more ships than he could hold. On top of that, you can always cramp in more TIEs - I think leaving 2 shuttles could make room for a whole squadron of TIEs. Or its just thematic. There are remnats of TIEs left from the first engagement, or a Escort carrier or a dameged cruiser just dropped his TIEs off before heading to saftey.
Remeber that the Rebels (as said above) had more hyperspace capability, but not unlimited range. Worst is the A-Wing that had a very weak Nav-Comp, that usally only had enough power to adjust to a jump from and back to a hardset base(-ship).
We need to acknowledge that the primary Imperial threat is the Fireball, aka Rhymer and a collection of Firespay-31 squadrons. Secondary is the threat of the Fireball mixed with a variety of Imperial anti-squadron support (Mauler, Dengar, Soontir, Vader). The latter is useful only in a squadron-rich environment.
Outside of these variants, Imperial squadron support is currently very limited. While synergistic for offense, Imperial squadrons tend to die easily and require constant attendance by ships with squadron commands.
Besides, don't forget that this value isn't représentative of the carried squadrons, just the number each ship can effectively coordinate any time
But if this was true, why would making the hangars larger (Expanded Hangars) enable a ship to control more squadrons?
All of this works okay if "squadrons" is a term meaning an arbitrary group of fighters. Maybe a squadron of X-wings is only 5 of them but when it's Tie Fighters the count is 20. A gozanti flotilla may be more than just 2 carriers. It could be a whole flotilla of 10 (40 fighthers = 2 squadrons).
This way, you can say that a ship in Armada controls all of its fighters. If you expand the hangers, it controls all of those as well.
... Because its an abstraction?
the point I was making is that the squadron value is to abstract to use as a limiting factor on how many squadrons the Imperials are allowed to deploy.
the point I was making is that the squadron value is to abstract to use as a limiting factor on how many squadrons the Imperials are allowed to deploy.
Maybe that squadron value isn't representing the number of squadrons that could be CARRIED but could be GUIDED at a time by the flight control teams.
It would be more interesting if carriers could launch their squadrons in battle - while other support ships could not.
In terms of a campaign where you move your fleet from system to system, those limitations could be interesting as well. And then also limit the imperial fleet to its canonic loadouts if possible, like 3 sqadrons of Tie Fighters, 1 squadron of Tie Bombers for an ISD
In a campaign, that would be great.
Imp ships carry a standard array of squadrons. Though I would allow named Imperial ships to variate from this (i.e. Relentless might carry tie interceptors).
Some system for managing Rebel squadrons should also be applied - but much more lax. Maybe any combination of fighters up to 2x the Squadron value of the ships?
Plus the squadron level is not an accurate representation of the squadrons carried on a ship.
examples:
ISD carries 6 squadrons/ squadron level 4
Gozanti carries 4 TIEs now if you say a flotilla is 3 ships thats one squadron / squadron level 2
so I don't see this working
And this also brings up the discussion of is each base a squadron, or a flight? Some say that they are called squadrons so they have to be a squadron, where others say that the game is called Armada but we never field an armada so they are just terms used by the game company that sound cool. But if you come down on the side that says they are flights but were playing someone who said they were squadrons you show up with 27 bases (in the example) and they think you should only be able to have nine.
A one time poll showed that 4:1 players think that a squadron is a .... sqaudron. So ~12 fighterts not 3 like on the stand. ...
I might have believed this once, but now (or shortly will have) when you have a squadron for Luke, Wedge, and Biggs who to the best of my knowledge served in the same squadron. Also just because players think it is one thing does not mean it is the case. It may be like meta and vary based on local area.
I'd also like to mention that relative to the number of fighters seen on screen per capship at any given time, one model = one craft makes total sense. At endor we see like 30 fighters at the vanguard of a fleet of 3 mc80's, 2 nebs, amd 3 cr90's... we see less than 50 tie fighters deployed for about 40 ISD's + SSD.
We see 30 x-wings/y-wings destroy a small moon sized uber battle station: why do they keep building them? Heroes gotta blow up something
I'd also like to point out that a single modern strike aircraft armed with a pair of air to surface weapons could sink a multibillion dollar super carrier, but that doesnt stop the US from building them...(maybe star wars is more realstic than we give credit!)