I been thinking about how the game has changed since the release of wave 3 with flotillas. I initially thought deployments would go up by 1 or 2 with ability of taking a cheaper ship that could push a fewer squadrons easily. However, 10+ deployments is fairly common post flotillas where you would be hard pressed to before to see more then 9 deployments. With that many ships on the board, the games slows down, which cause problems in a tournament setting. Also, it makes the game less fun. I think the game plays best with 2-5 ships and 4 to 8 squadrons per side, though the exact numbers people may disagree. I think many people do agree not much is brought to the game by having what seems like an excessive number of pieces of the board. I don't think this needs be done for balance, but for playability.

I was think cap somewhere in the range of 7 to 10 deployments with a bonus squadron.

Also, it makes the game less fun. I think the game plays best with 2-5 ships and 4 to 8 squadrons per side, though the exact numbers people may disagree. I think many people do agree not much is brought to the game by having what seems like an excessive number of pieces of the board. I don't think this needs be done for balance, but for playability.

I was think cap somewhere in the range of 7 to 10 deployments with a bonus squadron.

"Fun" is subjective. You may not find lots of ships and fighters on the board fun, but your opponent might really enjoy having that numerical advantage and they have fun playing with that many ships. What's brought to the table by these kinds of fleets is a whole new fleet archetype that didn't exist before wave 3-4. It may not be "popular", but it's no less of a legitimate fleet build and strategy.

While I personally have no interest in playing many games against fleets that have 9+ deployments (because you do have a point, excessively large fleets do slow things down considerably), it doesn't seem fair at all to limit deployments just because some people have really large fleets.

Who-heartedly Disagree.

For One: If you don't find it fun, don't play it.

But what we're seeing is design-intent in action.

People first say "It doesn't feel like a Fleet."... Then you give them the option, and its "too many pieces"... You have "I want all the aspects", and then you get "Squadrons are too good."

If you want to make a mark - then empirically, rather than anecdotally, put together your findings... Scrape from Smitty's data if you have to...

But find some proof of your statement, rather than just heresay ...

Because I'm here every day. I hear people say a lot of things...

I typically run 10 squads and 3-4 ships. I enjoy that. If there would be a cap like you say, you are forcing me to play the game you want it to be played. How is that fair to me? What makes this game so good is having the freedom to do what ever you want with your fleet.

My games never go to time. Typically they are over in 90 minutes because I know what my fleet is supposed to do and I don't care what my opponents fleet does. I have a plan and stick to it. Practice has made my decisions quicker and more effective. I remember when it took me 4 hours to complete a game when I first started 400 point fleets.

Practice more. Stick to an archetype and play it till you get sick of it. And then time your games and see how much quicker they are. And play against someone of equal skill that knows the rules and won't slow you down.

I like playing against 10+ deployments.

I play lists that dont care about deployment games. So its amusing to watch the floundering.

compared 2016-2017 where the winning German fleet had 14 deployments.

It itself a statistical outlier, being that it was part of a competition that only included Wave 3, but not Wave 4...

According to 2016 Armada Regionals Data(Wave 2), no recorded fleet had more then 9 deployments, compared 2016-2017 where the winning German fleet had 14 deployments.

Are you comparing one Regional result to the entirety of Wave 2 2016 regional results?

Two different forums (here and the Armada reddit boards) and still nobody in support of this measure other than the OP.

I will add on a somewhat-sympathetic note that back in wave one, squadronless fleets were very popular. I didn't like that much at the time and I made a post about what kind of requirements or rules changes you could introduce that would make squadrons more frequently-used. I was basically told I was a complete moron and further tinkering with the game would be a bad idea and we'd see how things developed in future waves. While I would have appreciated a nicer tone from some people, the fact of the matter was that I was being a complete moron and further tinkering with the game would be a bad idea and wave two absolutely made squadron builds much better. So please be patient.

It is not about be 'fair'. I would like to have more than 134pts in squadrons, but I can't because of the squadron point cap. Armada is a better game because the squadron point cap limits, not removes, one aspect of from over shadowing the others. The squadron point cap could even be dropped if a deployment cap was added. Also, if deployment limits was set 9 plus one dangling squadron and squadron point cap was dropped, would that be much more restrictive?

Do you know what makes this game fair? Everyone has 400 points to build a fleet and 1/3 of that for squadrons. And you get to do whatever you want with those points following the fleet building rules. Adding yet another constraint would limit the potential for this game. It means people now have to play large ships with a lot of points again. Well guess what? Some people don't want to do that. They want to play MSU or carrier fleets. All of my current fleets have 8+ deployments, and I would hate this rule.

Cumulative restrictions do not make for fun games because you start to get the same things showing up. Check out Hearthstone or MTG. With every new release, a few decks are simply stronger than the rest and everyone plays them. If you capped deployments at 6, what's to stop people from always playing Demo as it is 1 of your 6 activations, much like you can have a minimum of 60 cards in a deck. What would happen is a few fleets would be so optimized, there would be no creativity or growth in the community. No original ideas. Carrier fleets would be obsolete since you would have 8 squads on the table and run BCC with a main carrier like a Vic or AF. What do you do with the remaining points? It's likely you are missing about 100.

The best way to change how people build fleets is to introduce new ships and squads, which are coming. Sadly for you, it is more squads and small ships so expect to see more MSU and carrier fleets.

@UndeadGuy You are right 6 horrible, that why I didn't even suggest that. I also suggested removing the squadron cap, since would be more less redundant.

@Snipafist, I don't expect this rule change to actually happen, but, I am not alone feeling the pain of the game slow down for very large fleets. 9 deployments is not large. Honestly I don't expect the game to change as much with this upcoming wave 5. Wave 1 and 2 double the content each time, and wave 3 added flotillas which was probably the most impactful and represented pair ships they have added. Wave 4 on its own seems like a side note; the liberty is a cross between an ISD and salvation, not really game changing; the interdictor is interesting and will probably see more play when combined with CC. However, nothing in Wave 4 really radically changed game like the prior 3. I expect wave 5 and CC to change the game, but not nearly as radically as the first 3 waves. The Arquitens seems reasonable similar to a Neb-B, maybe its titles are as impactful too? But short of it have different but equally impactful titles as the Neb-B, I can't imagine Arquitens changing game, it merely adding to the game. The Pelta also seem to have similar role to existing ships; the Assault Frigates and the Victory. Again adding to the game, not changing. Fletcher... might slow down some squadron spam, which might be countered by Rapid L... which might speed up play since not all the squadron will start on the table. Even if Fletcher... counters squadrons to some extent, it remains unlikely relevantly change overall piece count and corresponding play time. The new squadrons seem interesting as well; though they will change the squadron meta and which squadrons are brought to the board, they will not likely change then number of squadron brought.

I will add on a somewhat-sympathetic note that back in wave one, squadronless fleets were very popular. I didn't like that much at the time and I made a post about what kind of requirements or rules changes you could introduce that would make squadrons more frequently-used. I was basically told I was a complete moron and further tinkering with the game would be a bad idea and we'd see how things developed in future waves. While I would have appreciated a nicer tone from some people, the fact of the matter was that I was being a complete moron and further tinkering with the game would be a bad idea and wave two absolutely made squadron builds much better. So please be patient.

That was you? Wow.

I disagree with a lot of your opinions, but I am really surprised by that. I dont think you are a moron.

I absolutely LOVE fleets where i have a 'large' capital ship, a cr90 or neb B, and then a ton of fighters...

...i would love to spend $200, buy 10 rebel fighter 2 expansion packs, then field 19 squadrons of Z-95 headhunters, i think the look on my opponents face would be Glorious

Usually i field a assualt frigate, cr90 and Neb B with upgrades and full 133 squadron points, its what i find FUN

Somewhat of a side-ways solution?

There were plenty of people who, at the inception of this game, similarly complained that having blue-on-blue matches was really unthematic and unsatisfying. Now that we have CC, there is a "competitive framework" where such situations are necessarily avoided. It's a bit more than "go play your own game lol newb" but less than drastically forcing a change in everyone else's behavior that's artificial.

I think there's plenty of room for community developed "side games" or "specialist scenarios" that similarly fall in an inbetween sort of area: one of which that I hope will some day see official support is historical battles where the forces, deployment, and even obstacle placements have been set, much as the beginner battle in the core set box. I absolutely loved the way that played and it brought back fond memories of WWII historical battle games and chess puzzles from my younger years. Or maybe obstacle placement is set, but fleet commanders have fixed fleets and may alter their deployments. There are lots of possibilities in the grey space without altering the whole game!