I feel like we're not going to ever hear emmjay's reply to all this. I'm actually interested to know his opinion on some of the more serious responses from the last couple pages. If any other squadron shamers (I say it with love) wanna chime in, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Am I the only one waiting for a Rebel commander than will let us take up to 2/3 our points as squadrons? To better reflect the ground-based forces seen in episodes 1,4,5 and 7.

Yes. Unless you want to face off again 20 lancers all Rogue bombers.

New to Armada... Are there lancer-class frigates in Armada yet? Sure would be fun to shoot some Rebel squadron-scum with a bunch of quad canons

I feel like we're not going to ever hear emmjay's reply to all this. I'm actually interested to know his opinion on some of the more serious responses from the last couple pages. If any other squadron shamers (I say it with love) wanna chime in, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Yea I am also interested in that. If you are a player who doesn't run squads, what do you think of the data schmitty has collected about squad composition? No hate here, just genuine curiosity.

I feel like we're not going to ever hear emmjay's reply to all this. I'm actually interested to know his opinion on some of the more serious responses from the last couple pages. If any other squadron shamers (I say it with love) wanna chime in, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

I'm not a squadron hater per se, but I'm in the camp where I'd like to see more capital ships in the game.

For example, I would love to see the squadron # go to 150 and have the total game go up to 500

I wouldn't call myself a shamer but I am in the camp of playing Armada for the capital ships. I'm not a huge fan of the squadron aspect because it's too simplistic (that's with a huge "in my opinion" before anyone gets set off). The movement is too easy, the damage too reliable, and the countermeasures a little to simplistic for me to get into it. It translates to generally you roll and someone takes damage. I remember the wave 1 days where basically the squadron game was just rolling off until someone was dead.

I understand why FFG has done what they've done with the fighter game. In the last fighter article they basically came out and said it. They don't want people to run absolutely no fighters or at the very least not allow no fighter lists to be considered the strongest build. I like the move from that aspect because I firmly believe people should be engaged in every aspect of the game. Personally I take a small fighter screen and I have to wrack my brain on how to use it effectively to screen my ships.

The game is developing still and FFG has made the fighter game more interesting with its releases, but ultimately I've haven't anything that grabs me about the fighter game. It's too grindy for my tastes and it can make the game drag. I understand that a slow player is a slow player but a player activating 10 squadrons is almost the equivalent of activating the same number of ships where I'm just standing there doing nothing. Add the difficulty of trying to finagle the maneuver tools around all the little fighter bases and I start to daydream.

Seems 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 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...

One point you might have missed by skipping through is that the data values the perception. It seems like your Rome experience was an outlier in than other Regionals did not have nearly as many squadrons.

I wonder if the results from that will be added to Shmitty's data.

It might be that there's variation in regional metas in that some regions are much more squadron heavy than others. It would be interesting if Shmitty added a measure of central tendency to his spreadsheet, in addition to median and mode (if he hasn't already), both at the individual list, and regional competition level of analysis.

This feels like the Sawn-Off Shotgun complaints from Gears of War. They always receive a large number of complaints about it during the beta but the data never back it up.

The issue seems to stem from the way in which certain mechanics work. Shotguns are usually instagib weapons at point blank. When you die to them, it fesls as if you never had a chance. So losing to that stands out compared to a Lancer where they have to wear you down. It is confirmation bias.

So in Armada, data do not support bomber wings being broken or necessarily a top tier choice. But losing to a well built bomber wing is frustrating as all your defenses do jack once they get through.

Also, as I say consistently, squads do not slow the game down. Indecisive players slow the game down. For the same reason that losing to a bomber wing stands out, losing to indecisive squadron players stands out.

Seems 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.

This feels like the Sawn-Off Shotgun complaints from Gears of War. They always receive a large number of complaints about it during the beta but the data never back it up.

The issue seems to stem from the way in which certain mechanics work. Shotguns are usually instagib weapons at point blank. When you die to them, it fesls as if you never had a chance. So losing to that stands out compared to a Lancer where they have to wear you down. It is confirmation bias.

So in Armada, data do not support bomber wings being broken or necessarily a top tier choice. But losing to a well built bomber wing is frustrating as all your defenses do jack once they get through.

Also, as I say consistently, squads do not slow the game down. Indecisive players slow the game down. For the same reason that losing to a bomber wing stands out, losing to indecisive squadron players stands out.

That's probably very true when you are on the wrong side of the squadron game. You just have to kind of stand there and take it. When it comes to the indecisiveness, the problem with the fighter game is that there are just more pieces to be indecisive about. Chess clocks would fix that in a heartbeat.

Seems 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.

This feels like the Sawn-Off Shotgun complaints from Gears of War. They always receive a large number of complaints about it during the beta but the data never back it up.

The issue seems to stem from the way in which certain mechanics work. Shotguns are usually instagib weapons at point blank. When you die to them, it fesls as if you never had a chance. So losing to that stands out compared to a Lancer where they have to wear you down. It is confirmation bias.

So in Armada, data do not support bomber wings being broken or necessarily a top tier choice. But losing to a well built bomber wing is frustrating as all your defenses do jack once they get through.

Also, as I say consistently, squads do not slow the game down. Indecisive players slow the game down. For the same reason that losing to a bomber wing stands out, losing to indecisive squadron players stands out.

That's probably very true when you are on the wrong side of the squadron game. You just have to kind of stand there and take it. When it comes to the indecisiveness, the problem with the fighter game is that there are just more pieces to be indecisive about. Chess clocks would fix that in a heartbeat.

Also, I rarely get irritated with indecisive squad play personally as I have made sure all the local guys learned good squad play. I get flustered more at the indecisiveness of players determining movement with ships. Those take far longer than any squadron.

I tried reading this thread and to put serious thought into the discussion but I can't. Squadrons are just as much of an importance as capital ships in Star Wars, if not more, in every single movie, show, comic or book. They are an absolute important feature to Star Wars and always will be.

An MC80 did not save the Galaxy from the dreaded Death Star I or II, it was the squadrons that defeated them and the Executor SSD because the Capital Ships couldn't do any real damage to any of them. That's just the reality and I'm sorry if the lore of Star Wars isn't your thing. Star Trek is of course totally about Capital Ships and their games don't include squadrons. Have you tried them?

So, if capital ships are not worth it, why have them in the first place. When you can have an X-Wing for 149,999 credits, you know that they are MUCH cheaper than any major capital ship.

Traveling over long distances of space, and operating for weeks if not months without landing on a planet, i would prefer to have a bunk and toilet, to cover my other natural needs as a pilot, that an X-wing can't provide, but which an MC80 cruiser can

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...

One point you might have missed by skipping through is that the data values the perception. It seems like your Rome experience was an outlier in than other Regionals did not have nearly as many squadrons.

I wonder if the results from that will be added to Shmitty's data.

It might be that there's variation in regional metas in that some regions are much more squadron heavy than others. It would be interesting if Shmitty added a measure of central tendency to his spreadsheet, in addition to median and mode (if he hasn't already), both at the individual list, and regional competition level of analysis.

I will add in any information on Rome that I can get.

I have mean, median, mode for squadron numbers and am planning on working up a plot of the data so we can better see how it is distributed.

So earlier in the discussion I maintained the position that its really flotillas that are the problem since they provide too much tactical advantage for their point cost in their activation, deployment, squadron activations, blocking abilities, and their ability to life-boat admirals and it is for these reasons squadrons seem stronger than they should. However, upon further inspection of the data I found the fleet compositions of the top 4 players in each regionals consisted of about 38% flotillas while all players but the top 4 had a fleet composition of about 32% flotillas. From this I guess flotillas aren't the issue I thought they were since there is a very small difference in the proportion winning and losing players run flotillas, but I do find it annoying they compose about a third of all fleets.

I want to download the document to look at it a bit more in-depth though.

38% by # ships or by # points

38% by # ships or by # points

By ships. So if a person had 1 flotilla of 4 ships I counted it as .25

38% by # ships or by # points

By ships. So if a person had 1 flotilla of 4 ships I counted it as .25

What I have noticed while entering all of that data is that while Flotillas may make up 38% of fleets they are combined with a really wide variety of options. I see flotillas as the great enablers, but in a good sign for balance they are enabling all different types of fleet builds.

38% by # ships or by # points

By ships. So if a person had 1 flotilla of 4 ships I counted it as .25

What I have noticed while entering all of that data is that while Flotillas may make up 38% of fleets they are combined with a really wide variety of options. I see flotillas as the great enablers, but in a good sign for balance they are enabling all different types of fleet builds.

A few more notes after re-reviewing Shmitty's data:

• Winning fleets do average more squadrons (as you get to the higher brackets, like top 4 and winners), but they also average more deployments. Is this a side effect of taking squadrons, or is part of the real power of the squadron in winning the deployment game?
• You can win with no-squadron of very squadron light fleets, but they need a clear plan for dealing with squadrons. Mothma seems the most obvious choice but there are other solutions.
• Intel has made fighter screens somewhat obsolete and those are likely not a solution; unless your fighter screen has overwhelming force it does not win, and worlds featured aces vs. bombers in the final for a reason.
• The real loser in all this remains large ships.

I'm not terribly worked up about the current squadron meta so much as the distortion effect that the activation meta (part of why, as Shmitty correctly notes above, they make such exceptional enablers) is having on the game. I think if that were better addressed, squadrons would feel more natural.

Seeing that over 80% of Rebel fleets had transports and over 70% of Imperial fleets had Gozantis - I'd say that we are seeing a definite bias toward using these ships.

The number for regional winners rises to 100% with Imperial and 90% with Rebels.

That's about as close to a must-include as I've seen in this game.

If you look at the Regionals data I added some graphs of squadron counts. It is a pain to do so quickly or I would have posted them directly here.

Anyways, the squadron count data for the whole field of Regional participants in "normally" distributed for the most part with an emphasis on even squadron counts.

The Top 4 data looks a little different due to a lower sample size, but the clustering is similar.

Essentially most of the fleets showing up have 4-8 squadrons in them. Most of the fleets in the Top 4 have 4-8 squadrons in them. There is nothing that strngly suggest only fleets with high squadron counts can be successful at a Regional.

38% by # ships or by # points

By ships. So if a person had 1 flotilla of 4 ships I counted it as .25

What I have noticed while entering all of that data is that while Flotillas may make up 38% of fleets they are combined with a really wide variety of options. I see flotillas as the great enablers, but in a good sign for balance they are enabling all different types of fleet builds.

This is why I don't mind flotillas. They are fantastic enhancers for all kinds of different ships. The same fleet might use Slicer Tools as a fighter screen enhancer or to force an ISD into MC30 arcs. Comms Net's utility varies dramatically depending on whether it's in a Madine fleet, a carrier fleet, a red dice fleet, or an MSU. BCC singlehandedly brought bomber game into the limelight (for better or for worse).

But notice the common theme here: The flotilla is never the focus of the fleet. It is a fantastic force multiplier. Remove either the flotilla or the thing it's enhancing, and the combo goes away.

I think they add a really interesting layer of complexity over the wave two game without supplanting everything else.

Tl:dr Flotillas are Bacon, make everything better

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.

I love the data and the analysis debate that goes back forth. Its great to have it. The one curious observation I'd make is that I'm not really sure there's necessarily a big ship problem, or to express this more exactly, I'm not sure the data shows a big ship problem. I mean compared to the overall numbers taking large ships, we've got 43% in the top 4 and 52% overall, so there's definitely a decline there, but I wonder how much is sample size, especially for the top finishers. Three of the 4 top 4 in Houston had large ships this past weekend, two of them Imperial. Depending upon what happened elsewhere, those numbers will shift a bit more favorably toward the large ships, though our winner was the runner-up at worlds with his same exact list. In the winner's column, I think the data is really subject to the limitations of sample size.

My thoughts on large ships:

The original MC80 and ISD can both be outfitted to work with the present squadron and flotilla game. At that point, I don't think the lists are necessarily any better or worse than a squadron list with a medium ship. Lots of activations seem to matter the most when you're setting up a heavy hitter like Admonition. At that point, your carrier is hitting a bit harder than the medium sized carriers, and potentially much harder with the right upgrades, but you're probably losing an activation to get the same kind of squadron component. In my experience, that doesn't tend to matter as much for either of these ships. Outfitting both as gunships and taking lighter squadron components with the goal of stopping up enemy bombers is certainly doable as well. MC80+Corvette+Flotilla spam, especially setting up a Defiance shot at the end of the round has worked very well in several Regionals. Gunnery Teams on the ISD with the goal of taking a solid front-arc shot at the toughest enemy ship AND picking off a flotilla is also doable, and plays well with Flotilla+defensive squadron spam, and an additional heavy hitter.

That takes us the Liberty class, which I started running this regional season as a way to deal with the flotilla activation spam meta. Its certainly playable, but in my experience, I saw some good lists at regionals with it, and I saw some lists doing absolutely awful with it. I was running a speedy list with light squadrons that jumped in, killed the squadron-activators, and then jumped out before it could take enough damage. I could also see a lighter list that hung back and chucked red dice while slow-balling at speed-1 and letting its own squadrons work on the enemy squads and/or ships as needed.