When I started playing Armada when it first came out I Thought what if they had done the arcs for the SD's abit different, get rid of the front arc and have the two sides meet at the front, I know alot of people probably won't be keen on it but what are your thoughts?

Yes I realise I put left and right the wrong way round, lol....

So double arcing would require... pointing the ship forward and that's it? No, thank you.

So double arcing would require... pointing the ship forward and that's it? No, thank you.

Ahhh good old Star Fleet Battles centre lining an opponent with a Hydran Ranger. I prefer the current setup.

So double arcing would require... pointing the ship forward and that's it? No, thank you.

Ahhh good old Star Fleet Battles centre lining an opponent with a Hydran Ranger. I prefer the current setup.

Even the Feds liked to centerline so the RS/LS phasers could get in on the action.

So double arcing would require... pointing the ship forward and that's it? No, thank you.

And how is double arcing any more difficult when you have two chances of doing it to the front?

And even if you didnt change the actual dice on the sides, on both the Victory and Imperial it wouldnt make that much of a difference as you'd still only be throwing the same amount of dice as the current front arc, Imperial 2 the same colours, imperial 1 replaces a red and black for 2 blue, and Victorys replace a blue/black with a red

100pts plus. 3red 2 blue armanents in both arcs.

So double arcing would require... pointing the ship forward and that's it? No, thank you.

Ahhh good old Star Fleet Battles centre lining an opponent with a Hydran Ranger. I prefer the current setup.

You made me shed a tear by mentioning SFB. A few days ago I moved my 60 pound box of SFB stuff around the basement. Another tear was shed.

So double arcing would require... pointing the ship forward and that's it? No, thank you.

Ahhh good old Star Fleet Battles centre lining an opponent with a Hydran Ranger. I prefer the current setup.

You made me shed a tear by mentioning SFB. A few days ago I moved my 60 pound box of SFB stuff around the basement. Another tear was shed.

Yes I've had to do the something whenever I move house, and that 60 pound was just the rule book and SSD's. :-(

here for the "oh SFB..." pseudo lament.

here for the "oh SFB..." pseudo lament.

Cheer up old friend. An ISD can still Klingon-Classic-Oblique with the best of them.

A few problems, one being easy double arcs, two being redirecting is too easy, three 4 arcs vs3 arc (not sure which gets a true advantage but it seems unfair. An idea I had was some ships like isd should have a cross instead of an X for arcs, but still see it being op.

I could imagine the inverse of this, a "Y" you could have a decent enough front arc and two "weakish" sides. Perhaps 3Blue/2Black to the front and 1Blue to each side for example.

You double arc then by running away.

So double arcing would require... pointing the ship forward and that's it? No, thank you.

And how is double arcing any more difficult when you have two chances of doing it to the front?

And even if you didnt change the actual dice on the sides, on both the Victory and Imperial it wouldnt make that much of a difference as you'd still only be throwing the same amount of dice as the current front arc, Imperial 2 the same colours, imperial 1 replaces a red and black for 2 blue, and Victorys replace a blue/black with a red

Sorry, did not mean to come off as that much of a smug tw*t.

The whole ship's weaponry would have to be redesigned completely (it could not be a split of the current stats) or the ships would need to be balanced by increasing the cost by a good amount.

Take an ISD II as an example:

It has a big, scary front ARC with 8 dice and two "weaker" sides of 4 each. This is split evenly into reds and blues.

Say nothing is changed and you just split the stats into MASSIVE arcs which are the same as the current front arc except now you have two of them 8 dice, 5 shields each.

Any Star Destroyer would be able to just run straight in the middle of a rebel fleet and do two of those devastating front arc attacks of 8 dice each against two ships on it's sides OR if it caught a single ship (very easy if a large ship is approached from the side) down the middle of it's arcs line.

That would be (if the total is not changed) 16 dice. That is 2nd player Advanced Gunnery level of awesome.

If one of the arcs gets dogged - the ship that did so is still facing the current 8 dice armament, except in a much larger area, making it difficult to dodge. Flanking tactics now become a bit pointless.

Attacks against the back of it would be tougher as well as you now have one of two adjacent 5 shield hull zones to redirect too.

Now yes, you can do this with Gunnery Teams or Advanced gunnery at the moment but - you can avoid the front by good maneuvering and one of them takes up the Weapons Team slot and costs extra points + opportunity cost of not taking Ordnance Experts / Veteran Gunners).

(Note: in the Y setup this slot would need to go away).

EDIT: adding a TL;DR:

A lot of advantages with little to no drawback.

Also, this would make taking small ships lot more of a risk and Rebels would just go for Rieekan (to survive and be able to fire back) or Dodonna (to fish for Projector Misaligned), promote even more squadron play (which as I _don't understand people seem to hate) narrowing the meta further.

Regarding current double arcing - it is not as simple as you are implying. On ships like Neb B, VSD and Liberty you will be turning a softer side towards the enemy. That trade-off is a nice part of the game's current design.

It gives the Star Destroyers flavour as well.

They turn towards the enemy and overwhelm them with forward fire like in the movies.

They don't go in for a gigantic alpha and then toilet bowl swirl so that maneuvering them almost doesn't matter.

Phew.

The Arquitens' main issue is exactly that it is very difficult to doublearc enemy ships with it. So as with MC30s, Nebulon Bs and a bunch of other (usually small based) ships. And that's the beauty of the game!

The whole ship's weaponry would have to be redesigned completely (it could not be a split of the current stats) or the ships would need to be balanced by increasing the cost by a good amount.

Take an ISD II as an example:

I'm not in favour of it because it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. The ISD (and most star Destroyers) have overlapping frontal arcs. The arcs don't just stop in the middle, but create that frontal arc where the fire from both left and right concentrates to create heavier fire.

So, for example, you're already getting a double shot from the ISD II's 2 red 2 blue per side to give you that front 4R4B. As for 3 arcs in general, It's really not my thing at all as it feels different for the sake of being different.

If you take into account the turret and weapon placement on a star destroyer, the main guns being either side of the superstructure and the "smaller" along the side walls, how can any weapon on the right hand side shoot over to the left,and vice versa. A Star destroyer will face its target head on to be able to fire everything, like the old Boresight weapons in babylon 5 a call to arms and the narrow front arcs in dropfleet commander, only in this small area should the Stra destroyers full firepower be able to be used, whereas currently the SD could be over 45degrees to the target and still be at full firepower.

The reason that Star Destroyers are shaped as they are "space triangles" is so that the guns mounted port and starboard can all point forward. This is already accounted for in the much stronger SD front arcs.

FWIW, I fully agree with the OP that this would be a more faithful representation of the ship's layout.

The point of maximum concentration of firepower (i.e. "double arc") should be dead ahead of an ISD (or any other space wedge), where all its guns can be brought to bear - not off to its side.

However, from a game design perspective, it would open up a big can of worms, probably requiring rewriting many rules and/or interacting poorly with some upgrade cards. That's why I shied away from this layout when developing Shipyards content.

The Arquitens' main issue is exactly that it is very difficult to doublearc enemy ships with it. So as with MC30s, Nebulon Bs and a bunch of other (usually small based) ships. And that's the beauty of the game!

I manage to get double side arcs on a ISD with my mc30. Also see mc80 get double arc sides on a ISD

Also see mc80 get double arc sides on a ISD

That is an impressive **** feat.

I knew it was possible, but between the inability to put the 80 in hyperspace and its awful native maneuverability...

Was it with Madine and ET? Please tell me it was with Madine and ET so I can feel better about myself.

All I managed was a double-sidearc with my MC30. But I'm not so sure an MC80 is so much better considering the MC30 has blacks.

All I managed was a double-sidearc with my MC30. But I'm not so sure an MC80 is so much better considering the MC30 has blacks.

Depends on the builds, I guess, but you're right.

I'm more just impressed by the staggering display of skill or fantastically good fortune needed to double-side arc with a whale...

If you take into account the turret and weapon placement on a star destroyer, the main guns being either side of the superstructure and the "smaller" along the side walls, how can any weapon on the right hand side shoot over to the left,and vice versa. A Star destroyer will face its target head on to be able to fire everything, like the old Boresight weapons in babylon 5 a call to arms and the narrow front arcs in dropfleet commander, only in this small area should the Stra destroyers full firepower be able to be used, whereas currently the SD could be over 45degrees to the target and still be at full firepower.

Because they are in space and not floating on an ocean.

All the ship needs to do, is drop its front facing down the negative plane relative to its target, and you get sides, front and the entire upper deck able to fire onto its target, or be slightly lower than its target and have everything firing upwards into it. That is the beauty of space combat, it's omni directional, and not limited like planetary combat is.

On 1/7/2017 at 9:36 AM, Vykes said:

I'm not in favour of it because it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. The ISD (and most star Destroyers) have overlapping frontal arcs. The arcs don't just stop in the middle, but create that frontal arc where the fire from both left and right concentrates to create heavier fire.

So, for example, you're already getting a double shot from the ISD II's 2 red 2 blue per side to give you that front 4R4B. As for 3 arcs in general, It's really not my thing at all as it feels different for the sake of being different.

On 1/10/2017 at 3:59 PM, Shepherd415 said:

The reason that Star Destroyers are shaped as they are "space triangles" is so that the guns mounted port and starboard can all point forward. This is already accounted for in the much stronger SD front arcs.

the problem is that the front arc is not representative of a combination of both arcs and can be about the same as one side arc, personally i feel that ships should have custom arcs and pizza slices should have 3 arcs 2 of which overlap