first I think all you guys that think Armada is a capital ship game are wrong, every ship in the Star wars plot line is a fighter carrier. its a mixed force game where no one thing is more needed or powerful then other things.

bombers and fighters should be just as deadly as the biggest capital ship and maybe harder for ships to kill.

But this isnt the films, its the ffg game of armada.

for those that don't know, the Bismarck was a 50.000 tons german battleship that, after proving itself against other ships of its time(even sinking the most famous british battlecruiser) in its first mission, was ultimately helpless when waves of torpedo planes and bombers from aircraft carriers started hitting it. after losing ability to properly steer due to damage, eventualy it got surrounded by british ships and was too damaged to properly fight back, even if some of the ships attacking it were much smaller(there were battleships, but there were also small torpedo-launching destroyers ) and could theoriticaly be easily sunk.

the Battle of Midway was a pivotal point in the Pacific front, and for many it proved once and for all that large Battleships were obsolete due to the aircraft carriers' prevalence, prompting the Japanese to cancel building new battleships.

I am not ranting, because I like the squadron game, but out of curiosity/conversation, do you people think that we have reached a point in armada's meta where massed bomber-heavy carrier fleets rule? with Moldy Crow, Rhymer, Dengar, Yavaris, bomber command center, flight coordination team etc it all seems like such lists are becoming more and more prevalent.

The Bismark was badly damaged in the engagement where it sunk the Hood, and was losing a lot of fuel oil. (The HMS hood had a weak spot in its lateral armour belts under the main tower, and a lucky shell hit here and penetrated into the main magazine, and the rest was history as they say.)

The Bismark was also immune to damage from the torpedoes dropped by fighter planes, its armour belts were to thick for them to penetrate it, one manage to damage a rudder locking it in position. when the ships finally caught up to it, the Bismark was hammered by ships of the line for a few hours and turned into floating wreckage, and was eventually sunk by a ship launched torpedo.

So perhaps not the best example, as virtually no significant (read direct) damage was caused to the Bismark by planes and carriers.

To answer your question, massed bomber fleets are easy points if you build in dedicated anti squadron, like all things they seesaw backwards and forwards.

No expert, no sample size, no proof, but here's my two cents

In wave 2, with a ryhmer ball I never felt threatened by rebel squads... Intel gave me the choice of attacking ships or attacking fighters... rebels didn't bring clouds of b wings, they brought a mix of x's, a's, and y's and those ships are meh to ok at bombing... y's are heavy, you can slip right past em, x's red bombing die lol, a wings counter useless since Intel means I never have to attack you... so you could just bring an imperial bomber heavy force with little to no anti-squadron fighters and be fine... and if your rebel opponent brought fighters, no big deal, if he didn't, no big deal...

Fast forward to wave three/four(thor)

BEES EVERYWHERE!!! and boy do those stings hurt! As an imperial, you can bring bombers like you use to sure, and still bomb ships if you want with Intel... but the rebel crackback is so much harsher now, you sort of can't ignore that b wing force and let it do it's thing because you will lose that race... also, he can use his bees to shoot down your forces with ease... 1.5 damage b wing vs. 0.75 TIE bomber.... add in toryn farr enhancing damage output, Jan ors decreasing damage taken, and tie's having heavy so that damaged bees can move out and sub in healthy bees while TIEs have to stay in place, and it's fairly easy to see the rebels have a clear advantage here...

So what to do... the quandary, oh the quandary... because if you now mix in some anti squadron and take out some anti ship you are going against imperial squadron methodology that says either a tie it's a bomber or a tie it's a fighter, not both... and so if you want to bomb bring bombers and if you want to fight, bring fighters, and don't mix, because neither will be done well... whereas b wings has essentially no drawbacks in this regard... lots of hull, no heavy, great against squads, best anti ship in the game, and now no speed drawback....

If you go all fighters as imperial, when you run into the no squads list you have wasted a ton of points... not only are they ineffective against ships, they die quick to any Flak...

One of the best counters I see therefore is demsu... just say, I'm not even going to play your squad game and instead just try to blow up a carrier... or give your bombers too many targets to choose from... and if I can blow up a mc80 and get enough obj points, I might be able to eek out a win...

But I dunno, that's just my two cents, but I think we are in the b wing era if anything

You mean like WAWYs list Sky? That counter went well.

Bwings can kill Demo before it gets its second shot with ease

You mean like WAWYs list Sky? That counter went well.

Bwings can kill Demo before it gets its second shot with ease

What was the list???

Squadrons were definitely good before waves 3 and 4 got here. Upgrades just improved their efficiency. And if we do see lots of squadrons, then we'll definitely see many more attempts at dedicated anti-squadron from ships. Someone is bound to hit upon a good combo eventually.

If you want to test this hypothesis, relax the 1/3 rule. Let one side take an all-fighter list, or a mostly fighter list, against an all-ship list or 1/3 fighter list.

I think the 1/3 rule will keep the big ships on the board.

What referencing WW2 tells me is that we need some subs and torpedo boats/torpedo counters!

What referencing WW2 tells me is that we need some subs and torpedo boats/torpedo counters!

For subs, the closest star wars ship would be the Jedi Stealth Ship. Cloaking device to close to close range, unload a barrage of proton torpedos, and run like heck till you can cloak again.

For PT boats, i think the Broha'tok Gunship fits the bill nicely.

Subs wouldn't belong in any sort of fleet action, though. They sank ships when the ships, like, tripped over them, they didn't do anything when ships were actually shooting each other.

We're talking about a setting that has space wizards in it but no possibility of torpedoes* or stealthy ships?

*Yes, we know that they are "technically" part of a ship's armament rating and/or upgrade cards

We're talking about a setting that has space wizards in it but no possibility of torpedoes* or stealthy ships?

*Yes, we know that they are "technically" part of a ship's armament rating and/or upgrade cards

I've written up some possible rules for cloaking devices over at KDY if you really want to take a crack at the stealth corvette from TCW (just ignore the bit about the Romulans and the Klingons). Ping me if you want the link or you can wander over and find it under Misc. yourself. They are in desperate need of playtest if you're offering some help.

Subs will be TIE phantoms. Though hard to model "true" cloaking in a game like this.

Nothing stopping them introducing a "cloaking device" type rule. Even if its "in the status phase, you can reposition this ship up to distance 1 of its current position" or something. Could be horribly powerful or effectively useless.

More generally, I've always though the MC30 torpedo does a pretty good approximation of a submarine role in this game.

Back on topic - my feeling is squadrons have a comparative edge on cap ships at present when used at full effect. I wouldn't feel I could counter a full rhymer ball without at least 5 blue antisquad dice in close company. And even then I'd expect to lose a ship to them.

Wave 5 will be interesting. Potentially we will see high performance squadrons that can counter a relatively higher point load of enemy. Sniping key components of the rhymer ball etc. Or they could just be too expensive to be practical. Will see.

I've been of the option that squadrons aren't more powerful so much as easier to use (making them more powerful in most of our hands). The B-wing was just as good in wave 1 as it is now if you knew where to put it. But it was very unforgiving if you didn't as it could easily do nothing if it was always chasing the action (vs the action coming to it). FCT now make it easier to reposition from a mistake and allow it to keep up with the fleet expanding new options for it. Sure Bomber command, but the FCT means B-wings get used instead of people just using x-wings.

Meanwhile, Rhymer doesn't actually make your bombers better, it makes them easier to use. The 8 points spent upgrading to Rhymer could be an extra TIE bomber. In my opinion, most people overuse Rhymer. The TIE bomber is plenty fast enough to make plenty of attacks as is and can be harder to stop when you don't force it into a group. A single Gozanti instead of Rhymer can help the stragglers along while providing activations, commands, and its own attack. A defuse bomber group means less need for Intel.

Way back I did a point assessment on how to build a "balanced" squadron force where balanced means the ability to take on opposing squadrons while maintaining a decent anti-ship role. 2 TIE fighters and 1 TIE bomber is a great ratio. The package costs 25 points, has both anti-squadron and anti-ship capability (the fighters have reasonable anti-ship point efficiency as is) and the bombers have resistance to ship based anti-squadron fire. The TIE fighters do need to spread out to avoid the flak.

Finally, by ditching Rhymer you have less tendency to have a giant ball of squadrons and can cover more ships with a similar force.

Lose Rhymer. He's a crutch.

Meanwhile, Rhymer doesn't actually make your bombers better, it makes them easier to use. The 8 points spent upgrading to Rhymer could be an extra TIE bomber. In my opinion, most people overuse Rhymer. The TIE bomber is plenty fast enough to make plenty of attacks as is and can be harder to stop when you don't force it into a group. A single Gozanti instead of Rhymer can help the stragglers along while providing activations, commands, and its own attack. A defuse bomber group means less need for Intel.

Rhymer, by definition, makes your bombers better. He gives them abilities they didn't have before, making them more effective at doing their job.

He allows attacks on ships outside the range of black AA dice.

He allows target switching between multiple ships in a larger radius.

He allows attacking rapidly retreating ships.

Better!

So as not to further derail this topic, I started a specific anti-rhymer topic.

A major balancing factor is that if all your ships die, then so do all your squadrons. So long as that rule stands, squadrons will be useful, but not dominant.

Really that should only be true for Imperial squadrons without hyperdrives shouldn't it?

He's not making a suggestion. That's the rule right now, lore grievances not withstanding.

*I'm* making a suggestion!

This is actually one of our house rules here:

"In deathmatch games, a player may declare victory once all of his opponent's hyperdrive-equipped vessels are destroyed."

For Imperials, this includes all ships and TIE Advanced x1's. For Rebels, it includes everything so far released. To balance this a little, we're thinking about trying to implement damage cards that affect hyperdrives, or a new passive effect for the Interdictor which prevents vessels from entering hyperspace.

I would post something on-topic here, but I don't have enough experience with the new waves to say anything. I was just here for the WWII reference.

Nothing stopping them introducing a "cloaking device" type rule. Even if its "in the status phase, you can reposition this ship up to distance 1 of its current position" or something. Could be horribly powerful or effectively useless.

More generally, I've always though the MC30 torpedo does a pretty good approximation of a submarine role in this game.

Back on topic - my feeling is squadrons have a comparative edge on cap ships at present when used at full effect. I wouldn't feel I could counter a full rhymer ball without at least 5 blue antisquad dice in close company. And even then I'd expect to lose a ship to them.

Wave 5 will be interesting. Potentially we will see high performance squadrons that can counter a relatively higher point load of enemy. Sniping key components of the rhymer ball etc. Or they could just be too expensive to be practical. Will see.

Sort of. The MC30 always felt like a destroyer or PT boat, albeit much larger.

With the idea of cloaks, why not just use a rule that gives the ship better position to represent the sudden appearance? Think of something like the new Han but toned down.

With the topic at hand, I'm more inclined to say that there are some elements of that happening. On the other hand, it greatly depends on the fleet list and the fact that there's a general 'hybridization' of battleship/carriers in this universe. I really want to see the previews to get a better look at the new ships and squadrons and whether or not they affect this idea.

With the idea of cloaks, why not just use a rule that gives the ship better position to represent the sudden appearance? Think of something like the new Han but toned down.

I assume you mean, in X-Wing...

It would have to be toned down. Significantly.

The thing about X-Wing is the fact that there are no turn limits. Theoretically, a Ship has the potential, from its starting position, to reach almost any position on the table, given enough turns to maneuver...

That is distinctly *not* the case with Armada... The ability to set up a ship exactly where you want it, well, we know how balanced that is - with caveats, its balanced enough to nullify a first players advantage, while providing a disadvantage to the Second player at the same time.... So, powerful.

With the idea of cloaks, why not just use a rule that gives the ship better position to represent the sudden appearance? Think of something like the new Han but toned down.

I assume you mean, in X-Wing...

It would have to be toned down. Significantly.

The thing about X-Wing is the fact that there are no turn limits. Theoretically, a Ship has the potential, from its starting position, to reach almost any position on the table, given enough turns to maneuver...

That is distinctly *not* the case with Armada... The ability to set up a ship exactly where you want it, well, we know how balanced that is - with caveats, its balanced enough to nullify a first players advantage, while providing a disadvantage to the Second player at the same time.... So, powerful.

Well, yeah. That's why I said it would have to be toned down.

Not disagreeing, but I really, really felt the need to emphasise the exhaustive gap of just HOW MUCH it would have to be toned down... That's all.

Armada has always been about the BIG ships and will continue to do so. The only thing is at first squadrons were so underpowered many players didn't even bring them and when the winner of the first nationals was squadron less. FFG figures they needed to balance the power of the squadrons for this Star Wars game. After all starfighters were a big part of Star Wars and it wouldn't feel like a Star Wars game if no one flew squadrons.

FFG has the difficult challenge of keeping squadrons relevant while maintaining the focus on the big ships. So I don't think Armada will ever reach the Midway-Carrier naval battles that are seen now. now as for X-wing Epic with the huge ships yes that does have more of that big ships are just the carriers and the fighters do all the hitting. However that is still a game with the focus on starfighters and not on capital ships.