Okay, so can this thread be considered dead-by-data, or should we get back to some political polemic, and have it killed by a moderator?
I think the latter would be more fun, but that may just be my inner troll speaking.
Dodonna is coming to take your ISDs!!
Storm Troopers matter!
Palpatine will make the galaxy great again!
Leia used an unsecure server to transmit the Death Star plans!!
BENGHAZ...errrr... Battle of Endor!
Okay, so can this thread be considered dead-by-data, or should we get back to some political polemic, and have it killed by a moderator?
I think the latter would be more fun, but that may just be my inner troll speaking.
If the statement is that "the current meta forces players to use lots of squadrons to win games", then here is the data that kills that:
For Top 4 finishers at Regionals:
Essentially you have the same chance of being successful with a squadron-light fleet as a squadron-heavy fleet.
Okay, so can this thread be considered dead-by-data, or should we get back to some political polemic, and have it killed by a moderator?
I think the latter would be more fun, but that may just be my inner troll speaking.
If the statement is that "the current meta forces players to use lots of squadrons to win games", then here is the data that kills that:
For Top 4 finishers at Regionals:
- 0-4 Squadrons - 35%
- 5-7 Squadrons - 28%
- 8+ Squadrons - 37%
Essentially you have the same chance of being successful with a squadron-light fleet as a squadron-heavy fleet.
Out of curiosity, what is the percent of Top 4 finishers with 0 squadrons? Is there any chance you will ever let the document be downloadable? I want to look at some more things in-depth.
Edit: Nevermind, I found it.
Edit2: Wait, I'm confused. In the graph tab, the bar graph titled "Squadron Counts - Top 4" does not seem to agree with the 35, 28, 37 breakdown you have. Unless I'm reading it wrong?
Edit3: Here's a more clear distribution:
Number of fleets running X squadrons:
0: 5
1: 1
2: 1
3: 0
4: 8
5: 0
6: 7
7: 5
8: 8
9: 4
10: 4
Edited by GalacticFisterSeems like there are a lot of good points on both sides.
I believe that squadrons of fighters are an essential element in Star Wars. But here are the most salient issues currently:
1) The time sink involved in squadron-heavy games
2) The advent of "intel" making simple interception much more complicated
3) Flotillas as activations, cheap ship points, and fighter controllers resulting in fleets made up mostly of civilian transports.
These are valid worries that, I hope, can be addressed in the future.
I certainly think at least on 2 that Snipe is going to help out.
True. I wish the Empire had access to more than a single squadron with Snipe.
Pair Saber squadron with the named shuttle and we basically do
I'm kinda with the OP here. I hate squadrons. I have X-Wing for that. But I'm the minority.
I will agree with one specific point the OP made - Ships need more ways to combat squadrons. There are only a handful of ways right now to make ships actually be a threat to squadrons - and I'd like to see more show up. More cards like Agent Kallus. (Not exactly like him though). More options. Basically, right now in a diverse environment it's virtually impossible to be successful without squadrons. I kind of hate that. I use squadrons now in all of my fleets... not because I want to, but because I'm forced to. I'd like to have some serious options for squadron-less fleets.
This probably won't happen though - because of money. FFG can quickly and easily crank out squadron packs. They don't get painted so they are MUCH easier to produce. The sculpting is relatively easier too because the detail is much lower. I'm no expert but it's clear to see that manufacturing a TIE Fighter Squadron's plastic model, is significantly cheaper than a small capital ship. So they can make these squadron packs with ease... and you feel compelled to buy LOTS of them due to their super cheap point cost. Rebel Z-95s at 7 points!?!?! sure!!! just buy 10 packs! I would bet if they stopped making squadrons then Armada might run the risk of becoming unprofitable.
I'd love to see some house-rules tournaments that don't allow squadrons... or have a max of like 50 points of squadrons or something like that.
Okay, so can this thread be considered dead-by-data, or should we get back to some political polemic, and have it killed by a moderator?
I think the latter would be more fun, but that may just be my inner troll speaking.
If the statement is that "the current meta forces players to use lots of squadrons to win games", then here is the data that kills that:
For Top 4 finishers at Regionals:
- 0-4 Squadrons - 35%
- 5-7 Squadrons - 28%
- 8+ Squadrons - 37%
Essentially you have the same chance of being successful with a squadron-light fleet as a squadron-heavy fleet.
Shmitty, how does this look if you do it by points spend on squadrons instead of count? I rarely run lists with >8, but I usually spend at least 120.
I blame this on my love of the YT-2400, but is Han + Dash + 5 YTs really "less" squadrons than 8 vanilla TIE?
Edit: I would do it myself but my work blocks your spreadsheet - my apologies.
Edited by Reinholt
Okay, so can this thread be considered dead-by-data, or should we get back to some political polemic, and have it killed by a moderator?
I think the latter would be more fun, but that may just be my inner troll speaking.
If the statement is that "the current meta forces players to use lots of squadrons to win games", then here is the data that kills that:
For Top 4 finishers at Regionals:
- 0-4 Squadrons - 35%
- 5-7 Squadrons - 28%
- 8+ Squadrons - 37%
Essentially you have the same chance of being successful with a squadron-light fleet as a squadron-heavy fleet.
Out of curiosity, what is the percent of Top 4 finishers with 0 squadrons?Is there any chance you will ever let the document be downloadable? I want to look at some more things in-depth.
Edit: Nevermind, I found it.
Edit2: Wait, I'm confused. In the graph tab, the bar graph titled "Squadron Counts - Top 4" does not seem to agree with the 35, 28, 37 breakdown you have. Unless I'm reading it wrong?
Edit3: Here's a more clear distribution:
Number of fleets running X squadrons:
0: 5
1: 1
2: 1
3: 0
4: 8
5: 0
6: 7
7: 5
8: 8
9: 4
10: 4
The graphs and what you posted are pure counts. The 35/28/37 is broken down to a percentage.
I've been planning to open up the document for download when the regionals season is done.
Shmitty, how does this look if you do it by points spend on squadrons instead of count? I rarely run lists with >8, but I usually spend at least 120.
I blame this on my love of the YT-2400, but is Han + Dash + 5 YTs really "less" squadrons than 8 vanilla TIE?
Edit: I would do it myself but my work blocks your spreadsheet - my apologies.
Figuring that out is on the to-do list, but will take a bit of scripting. Given the number of squadrons now in the game it will take a bit of work to set up the calculations based on how I currently enter the data.
But your point is valid and something I am curious about myself.
Okay, so can this thread be considered dead-by-data, or should we get back to some political polemic, and have it killed by a moderator?
I think the latter would be more fun, but that may just be my inner troll speaking.
If the statement is that "the current meta forces players to use lots of squadrons to win games", then here is the data that kills that:
For Top 4 finishers at Regionals:
- 0-4 Squadrons - 35%
- 5-7 Squadrons - 28%
- 8+ Squadrons - 37%
Essentially you have the same chance of being successful with a squadron-light fleet as a squadron-heavy fleet.
Out of curiosity, what is the percent of Top 4 finishers with 0 squadrons?Is there any chance you will ever let the document be downloadable? I want to look at some more things in-depth.
Edit: Nevermind, I found it.
Edit2: Wait, I'm confused. In the graph tab, the bar graph titled "Squadron Counts - Top 4" does not seem to agree with the 35, 28, 37 breakdown you have. Unless I'm reading it wrong?
Edit3: Here's a more clear distribution:
Number of fleets running X squadrons:
0: 5
1: 1
2: 1
3: 0
4: 8
5: 0
6: 7
7: 5
8: 8
9: 4
10: 4
The graphs and what you posted are pure counts. The 35/28/37 is broken down to a percentage.
The graphs changed, they looked different a couple hours ago. Well, the one on the right did at least.
Fixed that. Not sure why, but it decided to grab some other numbers all on its own.
On the squad tab, I have stats broken by point brackets. Scroll to the right. Wasn't working on presentation. Sorry about that.
Anyway, squads average around 90 or 100, but in some brackets they are bi-modal at 70 and 134.
My only problem with Flotillas is how survivable they can be for their price. You have to put together a pretty decent ship to whack them out of the way quickly.
My only problem with Flotillas is how survivable they can be for their price. You have to put together a pretty decent ship to whack them out of the way quickly.
You only need 8 points and a turbolaser upgrade slot.
My only problem with Flotillas is how survivable they can be for their price. You have to put together a pretty decent ship to whack them out of the way quickly.
You only need 8 points and a turbolaser upgrade slot.
I would argue it's more than that, it's also the opportunity cost of the shot itself, and in some cases the opportunity cost of the turbolaser slot. If you really want to make someone regret taking flotillas, start using some CR90Bs with engine techs or using some suicide tactics with Quantum Storm.
My only problem with Flotillas is how survivable they can be for their price. You have to put together a pretty decent ship to whack them out of the way quickly.
You only need 8 points and a turbolaser upgrade slot.
I would argue it's more than that, it's also the opportunity cost of the shot itself, and in some cases the opportunity cost of the turbolaser slot. If you really want to make someone regret taking flotillas, start using some CR90Bs with engine techs or using some suicide tactics with Quantum Storm.
Valid points for sure.
I'd argue though that unless you were going to do so in the first place, the opportunity cost of bringing CR90b(s) with ET and/or bringing Quantum Storm is greater than that of equipping a flotilla killer with an H9. H9 is quite useful against larger ships too.
The point re: opportunity cost of a shot is well taken, but as has been discussed before sometimes the true worth of a flotilla is not necessarily reflected in it's point cost, but also in the effect it has on activation order / advantage. Killing it, even if with a shot that might do more damage elsewhere might be more worth in the end.
My only problem with Flotillas is how survivable they can be for their price. You have to put together a pretty decent ship to whack them out of the way quickly.
You only need 8 points and a turbolaser upgrade slot.
A flotilla is only 18 points itself.
My only problem with Flotillas is how survivable they can be for their price. You have to put together a pretty decent ship to whack them out of the way quickly.
You only need 8 points and a turbolaser upgrade slot.
A flotilla is only 18 points itself.
And if they're bringing multiples, that's 2 or three times that much.
And if they have any upgrades on them, then that's even more.
Small price to pay for an almost guaranteed kill.
Yep, and it's not like accuracy generation for hunting flotillas isn't really useful against other ships too.
I don't know how anyone could think squadrons are bad for the game. Have you SEEN Star Wars? The snubfighters are integral parts of every battle.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Endor
How many ships did squadrons actually kill in 4-6?
1. Death Star 1
2. Death Star 2
3. Executor
4. Devastator
5. Harbringer
6. Vehement
Thats it.
IF squadrons were so vital, as you all put it, why didn't they, at the Battle of Hoth, use their weapons to destroy the AT-AT's, and then go into space to destroy, or at least cripple, the large bulk of the Imperial Fleet?
And, 2 of them wern't even ships, they were Death Stars.
You should go watch Rogue Squadron. Also you have crazy high expectations, you acknowledge that squadrons killed both death stars and several Star Destroyers and still you feel like they aren't vital...? Really?
I'd also like to note that if the specific problem is flotillas pushing squadrons, it helps to identify if your fleet is better able to knock out the squadrons themselves or the flotillas pushing them. Making a half-hearted effort at destroying both halves is going to produce poor results (if you can make a full-hearted effort at destroying both halves, get ready to drink some tears of unfathomable sadness, you scamp you).
If you don't show up with some method of handling at least one of those two halves, I would strongly recommend rebuilding your fleet until you do. H9 Tubolasers, the Home One title, Captain Jonus, and Intel Officers all come to mind pretty immediately for anti-flotilla tech. Anti-squadron tech is readily at hand as well in the form of 2-dice flak ships and anti-squadron squadrons.
I read pages 1-3 of this thread. Then I saw there were a lot of replies, jumped to page 7 believing in was the last page. It wasn't, jumped again to page 10.
Please bear with me if I'm missing something crucial that was said in these last pages. The general discussion, however, seems to be revolving around: "squadrons ruin games, I wanted to play capital ships" VS "squadron add fun and complexity to my games, plus they're thematic and we see them a lot in the movies".
In my experience, both positions have a point. Here's some (anecdotal) evidence from the Rome regionals I attended yesterday: out of 10 players, the minimum squadron wing was something along 100 points, for what I saw everybody had at least 8 squadrons. Now, while I am on the "squadrons are fun to play" boat (after all I brought Luke, Jan, and 6 Xs), I do feel that too many fleets nowadays rely solely on squadrons up to the point that capital ships, especially with the omnipresent flottilla spam, become almost exclusively a matter of activations and squadron value. I think that the whole point of this thread is not just squadron hate, but displeasure at the sight of actual ships becoming less and less relevant (more anecdotal evidence: our regional was dominated by a liberty, 5x gr 75, 10x awing list) in favour of high, low quality activations backed by countless numbers of squadrons.
I'll admit this bothers me a little as well: while I am all for squadrons being competitive, I wouldn't want a game in which squadrons and flottillas are the ONLY competitive setup. I read about the MM MC 30 list. I'd like it to be one of the few options for running a squadronless fleet, not about the only one. Also, I'd like to be able to bring just a token force of squadrons, and let's be honest, right now that's a niche option at best.
However, after some thinking, I feel like FFG already tried to address this problem with wave 5, and specifically with the new flechette torpedoes. Yeah, squadrons remain the best anti squadrons, but at least now there's an option to shut down an enemy squadron force without fully committing to it. Generally speaking, in the future I'd like to get some dedicated anti squadron ship , maybe even with red anti squadron dice to start plucking damage early (please, dont come up with the raider: if you ever flew one, you'd know that it can work its magic only under a very specific set of condititions, all of which are hard to achieve nowadays, where high activations and low bid are to go to, at least in my meta. That plus no redirects mean it's extremely vulnerable to squadron fire).
A ship with 2 red AA dice would be Awesome. It would be a complete nightmare for squadrons.
I'm not actually calling for Flotillas to be nerfed or anything but that's been my experience with them- they're actually a pretty serious pain to blow up for their cost.
I read pages 1-3 of this thread. Then I saw there were a lot of replies, jumped to page 7 believing in was the last page. It wasn't, jumped again to page 10.
Please bear with me if I'm missing something crucial that was said in these last pages. The general discussion, however, seems to be revolving around: "squadrons ruin games, I wanted to play capital ships" VS "squadron add fun and complexity to my games, plus they're thematic and we see them a lot in the movies".
In my experience, both positions have a point. Here's some (anecdotal) evidence from the Rome regionals I attended yesterday: out of 10 players, the minimum squadron wing was something along 100 points, for what I saw everybody had at least 8 squadrons. Now, while I am on the "squadrons are fun to play" boat (after all I brought Luke, Jan, and 6 Xs), I do feel that too many fleets nowadays rely solely on squadrons up to the point that capital ships, especially with the omnipresent flottilla spam, become almost exclusively a matter of activations and squadron value. I think that the whole point of this thread is not just squadron hate, but displeasure at the sight of actual ships becoming less and less relevant (more anecdotal evidence: our regional was dominated by a liberty, 5x gr 75, 10x awing list) in favour of high, low quality activations backed by countless numbers of squadrons.
I'll admit this bothers me a little as well: while I am all for squadrons being competitive, I wouldn't want a game in which squadrons and flottillas are the ONLY competitive setup. I read about the MM MC 30 list. I'd like it to be one of the few options for running a squadronless fleet, not about the only one. Also, I'd like to be able to bring just a token force of squadrons, and let's be honest, right now that's a niche option at best.
However, after some thinking, I feel like FFG already tried to address this problem with wave 5, and specifically with the new flechette torpedoes. Yeah, squadrons remain the best anti squadrons, but at least now there's an option to shut down an enemy squadron force without fully committing to it. Generally speaking, in the future I'd like to get some dedicated anti squadron ship , maybe even with red anti squadron dice to start plucking damage early (please, dont come up with the raider: if you ever flew one, you'd know that it can work its magic only under a very specific set of condititions, all of which are hard to achieve nowadays, where high activations and low bid are to go to, at least in my meta. That plus no redirects mean it's extremely vulnerable to squadron fire).
A ship with 2 red AA dice would be Awesome. It would be a complete nightmare for squadrons.
I'm liking how squadrons are turning out, but I just want there to be more big ships and more focus on big ships. Then everyone on this forum goes full "GET OUT OR GET GOOD" mode to anyone who wants to have 2 large ships on the table. (Because it precludes upgrades and or squadrons if you want it to be well rounded).
I don't think squadrons need a nerf. I just want large ships to be buffed to be more relevant.
The very condescending and uncompromising fighting against large ship supporters is really toxic imo.
I read pages 1-3 of this thread. Then I saw there were a lot of replies, jumped to page 7 believing in was the last page. It wasn't, jumped again to page 10.
Please bear with me if I'm missing something crucial that was said in these last pages. The general discussion, however, seems to be revolving around: "squadrons ruin games, I wanted to play capital ships" VS "squadron add fun and complexity to my games, plus they're thematic and we see them a lot in the movies".
In my experience, both positions have a point. Here's some (anecdotal) evidence from the Rome regionals I attended yesterday: out of 10 players, the minimum squadron wing was something along 100 points, for what I saw everybody had at least 8 squadrons. Now, while I am on the "squadrons are fun to play" boat (after all I brought Luke, Jan, and 6 Xs), I do feel that too many fleets nowadays rely solely on squadrons up to the point that capital ships, especially with the omnipresent flottilla spam, become almost exclusively a matter of activations and squadron value. I think that the whole point of this thread is not just squadron hate, but displeasure at the sight of actual ships becoming less and less relevant (more anecdotal evidence: our regional was dominated by a liberty, 5x gr 75, 10x awing list) in favour of high, low quality activations backed by countless numbers of squadrons.
I'll admit this bothers me a little as well: while I am all for squadrons being competitive, I wouldn't want a game in which squadrons and flottillas are the ONLY competitive setup. I read about the MM MC 30 list. I'd like it to be one of the few options for running a squadronless fleet, not about the only one. Also, I'd like to be able to bring just a token force of squadrons, and let's be honest, right now that's a niche option at best.
However, after some thinking, I feel like FFG already tried to address this problem with wave 5, and specifically with the new flechette torpedoes. Yeah, squadrons remain the best anti squadrons, but at least now there's an option to shut down an enemy squadron force without fully committing to it. Generally speaking, in the future I'd like to get some dedicated anti squadron ship , maybe even with red anti squadron dice to start plucking damage early (please, dont come up with the raider: if you ever flew one, you'd know that it can work its magic only under a very specific set of condititions, all of which are hard to achieve nowadays, where high activations and low bid are to go to, at least in my meta. That plus no redirects mean it's extremely vulnerable to squadron fire).
A ship with 2 red AA dice would be Awesome. It would be a complete nightmare for squadrons.
I'm liking how squadrons are turning out, but I just want there to be more big ships and more focus on big ships. Then everyone on this forum goes full "GET OUT OR GET GOOD" mode to anyone who wants to have 2 large ships on the table. (Because it precludes upgrades and or squadrons if you want it to be well rounded).
I don't think squadrons need a nerf. I just want large ships to be buffed to be more relevant.
The very condescending and uncompromising fighting against large ship supporters is really toxic imo.
I think squadrons are thematic and am glad they are an important part of the game. I definitely don't think it's crazy at all though that people want to get more large ships on the table. I think a point boost to 450 or 500 without increasing squadrons would be nice, and also some red AA dice on a ship would be brutal.
Hmm. at this point, I'm kinda in favor of 500 too. Although, this game is kinda long.
I disagree with red AA dice. But more upgrades for fighting squadrons without needing squadrons would be nice.
I think this is where that alternate idea of using squadron values or required # of points for squads would have been an interesting game.
I could see a unique ship having a red AA die. Nothing beyond that. I'd actually rather see upgrades that affect squadrons in other ways, like reducing their battery dice or "pushing" them around.
Hmmmmmmmmm, I suppose you could have gotten rid of the squadron phase and changed squadrons into more a captial ship (i.e. similiar stats, pricing, and activations). Then again, a lot of what I'm reading is the typical wish list. You know what I mean. Constant threads about changing ramming.