So, I love Armada and think that it works wonderfully. I was wondering if either of the following two suggestions might make the gameplay better or more fun.

1: Ships can fire from the same arc IF one shot is anti-squadron and another is anti-ship.

2: Flotillas cannot contain Commanders.

I feel as if both of these are fluffy, are not game breaking, and can add to enjoyment.

Thoughts?

*Let's play nice!

I think #1 could be a future upgrade card? Offensive Retrofit?

#2 - I like... I also think a Large base or bigger (hope for SSD) should auto destroy flotillas!

#1 is why many people still take gunnery teams.

1: Ships can fire from the same arc IF one shot is anti-squadron and another is anti-ship.

2: Flotillas cannot contain Commanders.

I feel as if both of these are fluffy, are not game breaking, and can add to enjoyment.

I think they are both good suggestions, but the first in particular is a good idea.

I tend to take massive advantage of opponents running ships like MC80s by keeping squadrons in the flank they will want to use against my own ships, and while I offer no apology it can feel a little 'gamey'

#1 is why many people still take gunnery teams.

It is what makes me always consider it.

1: Ships can fire from the same arc IF one shot is anti-squadron and another is anti-ship.

2: Flotillas cannot contain Commanders.

I feel as if both of these are fluffy, are not game breaking, and can add to enjoyment.

I think they are both good suggestions, but the first in particular is a good idea.

I tend to take massive advantage of opponents running ships like MC80s by keeping squadrons in the flank they will want to use against my own ships, and while I offer no apology it can feel a little 'gamey'

I think #1 could be a future upgrade card? Offensive Retrofit?

#2 - I like... I also think a Large base or bigger (hope for SSD) should auto destroy flotillas!

Making an offensive retrofit would make the MC80 a little OP, no?

1: Ships can fire from the same arc IF one shot is anti-squadron and another is anti-ship.

My opponent always seems to give me a choice, shoot his ship or squadrons. Which, when you think about it is the right thing for him to do.

I stopped playing Battletech when good tactics was punished by game design. It was lazy, and made the game far more about the strategic choices than the tactical ones.

Good play should be rewarded with having to make hard decisions.

So on this one, no, I don't think it makes the game better.

2: Flotillas cannot contain Commanders.

A Corvette or Raider can chase down the commander. If you start chasing the commander down and killing him, and nothing says it like Squadrons with Rogue, you'll find it changes.

A variant I will try; identity of the flagship is not known to opponent. Players write down the ship the commander is on on a piece of paper before deployment. This can only be revealed voluntarily or by the following actions;

-When a squadron with 'intel' is within distace 1 of the flagship

-When any squadron uses its attack action against a ship but elects to scan instead of shoot.

-When it is destroyed.

When a non-flagship is 'scanned' or destroyed the opponent must also reveal whether the commander is on board.

A variant I will try; identity of the flagship is not known to opponent. Players write down the ship the commander is on on a piece of paper before deployment. This can only be revealed voluntarily or by the following actions;

-When a squadron with 'intel' is within distace 1 of the flagship

-When any squadron uses its attack action against a ship but elects to scan instead of shoot.

-When it is destroyed.

When a non-flagship is 'scanned' or destroyed the opponent must also reveal whether the commander is on board.

A variant I will try; identity of the flagship is not known to opponent. Players write down the ship the commander is on on a piece of paper before deployment. This can only be revealed voluntarily or by the following actions;

-When a squadron with 'intel' is within distace 1 of the flagship

-When any squadron uses its attack action against a ship but elects to scan instead of shoot.

-When it is destroyed.

When a non-flagship is 'scanned' or destroyed the opponent must also reveal whether the commander is on board.

Completely unnecessary vs me.

Have a guess what that flotilla in the opposite corner of the map at speed 1 is doing.

We've had "problems" in the game before that FFG eventually fixed with new content. It's annoying to be patient because their design process is a long time before it gets to stores but it happens.

More likely is something like: "Officer: Starkiller. When a friendly ship at distance 1-3 attacks the enemy flagship, it may add a red die set to the Accuracy face to its dice pool."

Or another name. Suddenly, the threat of this means tournaments will never see admiral lifeboats again.

1: Ships can fire from the same arc IF one shot is anti-squadron and another is anti-ship.

My opponent always seems to give me a choice, shoot his ship or squadrons. Which, when you think about it is the right thing for him to do.

I stopped playing Battletech when good tactics was punished by game design. It was lazy, and made the game far more about the strategic choices than the tactical ones.

Good play should be rewarded with having to make hard decisions.

So on this one, no, I don't think it makes the game better.

2: Flotillas cannot contain Commanders.

A Corvette or Raider can chase down the commander. If you start chasing the commander down and killing him, and nothing says it like Squadrons with Rogue, you'll find it changes.

I believe that my first suggestion rewards good play rather than punishes it. It encourages smart fighter placement. Rather than simply alpha striking, fighters must consider where there battles will take place.

Ah, that 18/24 point ship should dictate that? It should control 50+ points of fleet design? Your argument doesn't demonstrate why allowing it adds to the game, only that it demands a response. Additionally, putting your commander on a flotilla provides no real tactical choices in the game. Just fly him away. On a fighting ship you have to choose to risk him or not.

Although the lifeboat "problem" will be exacerbated by Relay and Centicore, I would still not consider it worthy of a rules change. A gentlemen's agreement (i.e. house rules) for non-competitive play against regular opponents, perhaps.

Having said that, pasewi's comment is spot on - the best way to solve the issue, and the most likely to happen, is the addition of new content that shifts the meta so this behaviour is no longer considered optimal.

#3: Flotillas do not count as ships for the purposes of tabling an opponent.

In other words, if you destroy all enemy ships other than flotillas you win the game by tabling.

#1 as a 5-ish point version of gunnery teams would be neat.

#3 I would support. 18 points deployed comically out of the fight should not count towards whether a fight is lost or not.

Is it me, or did commanders historically wait in the back of the battlefield during war?

To me, it feels particularly thematic that your commander would be off in the back, directing the fight.

Also, I do not see anything wrong with the strategy of number 2. If you lose your commander early, you lose his or her effect for the remainder of the game.

Is it me, or did commanders historically wait in the back of the battlefield during war?

To me, it feels particularly thematic that your commander would be off in the back, directing the fight.

Also, I do not see anything wrong with the strategy of number 2. If you lose your commander early, you lose his or her effect for the remainder of the game.

In Star Wars this doesn't tend to be the case.

We watched the commander in Rogue One sitting right there in a pod hanging from the biggest ship they had. We even saw that GR-75s were present for the battle - but the commander didn't hide in them.

Same with Akbar. He was right there in Home One.

Do we ever see any leader commanding a fleet from a transport? Vader was on his SD when pursuing the falcon.

Is it me, or did commanders historically wait in the back of the battlefield during war?

To me, it feels particularly thematic that your commander would be off in the back, directing the fight.

Also, I do not see anything wrong with the strategy of number 2. If you lose your commander early, you lose his or her effect for the remainder of the game.

I pretty much agree with this. Commanders should in fact not be going out there with a big target sign painted on their ship. President hangs out on Air Force One, not the Nimitz.

#3 suggestion about flotillas not count for purposes of tabling has my support.

3 might make MSU lists pause.

President hangs out on Air Force One, not the Nimitz.

Right - but Nimitz didn't get a ship named after him by hanging out in Hawaii.

(EDIT: He did, of course. The irony may not have come across as I intended.)

There are tons of ways already in the game to generate accuracies.

There are tons of ways already in the game to generate accuracies.

Right, but it's not just that, Tirion. It's that the ship itself is so cheap that it can't utterly disregard the battle, flying away from it or on the outskirts of battle, where it's sole purpose is either activation or deployment delay. Accuracies don't help if you literally can never shoot at the flotilla.

I understand the frustration, but I still think it's currently acceptable.

My lone suggestion would be simple:

Large base ships ramming a flotilla should automatically destroy the flotilla and not impede the movement of the ship (e.g. remove the flotilla if it would be overlapped, ship proceeds as normal as though the flotilla was never there). If this means you can ram through four of them in a group, more power to you.

This would reduce their ability to function as super cheap blockers / activation spam and would give large ships an appropriate and thematic (if we believe Rogue One) advantage.

I would also be game with not having flotillas count towards being tabled.

Is it me, or did commanders historically wait in the back of the battlefield during war?

To me, it feels particularly thematic that your commander would be off in the back, directing the fight.

Also, I do not see anything wrong with the strategy of number 2. If you lose your commander early, you lose his or her effect for the remainder of the game.

I pretty much agree with this. Commanders should in fact not be going out there with a big target sign painted on their ship. President hangs out on Air Force One, not the Nimitz.

The President isn't the commander in charge of a fleet. An Admiral of a naval fleet certainly doesn't hang out in some cargo transport during a battle.

That said, I think this is one of those relatively unimportant 'issues' out there. If someone wants to spend 18 points to put there commander somewhere relatively 'safe,' thereby dropping those points from the parts of their fleet that participates in the fight, well, whatever.