What about an X-Wing versus a DEATH STAR?

To be fair, we now have it on good authority that this battle only went well because of an inside traitor....

Well, it would work if Luke would actually roll a crit when he attacks.

Except the Decimator gets choice of where to attack, not the VSD. Rogue.

Honestly though, I think even in Star Wars, you do see smaller ships getting taken out by flak. It still doesn't make much sense.

Also, late war ships had incredible anti-air capabilities. Yes, Yamato was killed by air, but with vicious air casualties. There's a bunch of us World of Worshippers here too.

And don't forget the Battle of Endor, when a pair of A-Wings took down the forward shields on a Super Star Destroyer, then a third A-Wing took out the bridge.

Like it or not, squadrons punch above their weight class in the Star Wars universe. That includes in the Armada game, sometimes.

Well, to be fair, at best, the Victory kills the Decimator in one turn.

(Dual Arc, Concentrate Fire, Minister Tua, Cluster Bombs, and Quad Laser Cannons).

The victory can repair and the Decimator can't.

Nope. In the best possible conditions Vic1 will double-arc Decimator every round: so can kill it in 4 rounds.

no, the decimator moves and shoots after the vic moves (rogue), so it will never be double arced unless you lock it down.

You can, but would the Decimator ever be in two arcs since it can move after the Victory? I would think it gets in the rear arc and stays there.

But then the VSD is just repairing each turn as it calls for help from its supporting ships/squads.

technically, shouldn't this be with three decimators? (66 points vs 73) average of 4.5 damage a turn over 16 turns?

And don't forget the Battle of Endor, when a pair of A-Wings took down the forward shields on a Super Star Destroyer, then a third A-Wing took out the bridge.

Like it or not, squadrons punch above their weight class in the Star Wars universe. That includes in the Armada game, sometimes.

Umm, yea no. As someone who spent an awfully long time studying every bit of material about the Battle of Endor scenes that I could find, let me disavow you of this common misconception.

The A-Wings knocked out the bridge array with volleys of Concussion Missiles only after the shields of the Executor had been dropped by the concerted firepower of over eight MC80 Mon Calamari cruisers. If you look out of the Executor's bridge and behind the fighters during those scenes, there are a sea of MC80s firing into the Executor. The battle against the SSD was a much more substantial part of the movie, and in both the novelization of RotJ and the original story boards and script, it featured as substantial focus of the space battle. It was cut due to time, but you can find on YouTube, for instance, deleted scenes with General Madine on the bridge of a Mon Cal cruiser in the heat of the battle (it was his task force of cruisers that pummeled the Executor's shields down). While Green Squadron attacked the port array, which we see the culmination of in the film, Blue Squadron was also simultaneously attacking the starboard array. But of course all scenes with Blue Squadron were also cut from the final film (see the deleted scenes with the Mon Cal and Sullustan B-Wing pilots, for instance), though you can see when the Executor goes down that both port and starboard arrays have been destroyed.

It's also worth noting that originally, and at the time of RotJ, the domes on top of Star Destroyer bridges were not shield generators or shield projectors, but were rather sensor and antennae arrays (and indeed they even look like arrays of the "real world"). While the A-Wings blow them up and cause the ship to shake and the bridge officer to cry "Sir, we've lost our real deflectors" it's merely correlation but not causation. The shields collapse from the concentrated fire of the Mon Cals surrounding the Executor, at which point the A-Wings can then bombard the sensor arrays, which is also the point at which the bridge crew notices and alerts Admiral Piett that the shields have failed. This makes sense, since it'd be just plain stupid to have the shield generators/projectors of a ship exposed externally and not even protected by the very shields they are producing. But, for better or worse, it entered into the common wisdom of Star Wars--due to misconceptions like you've expressed here--that those domes are in some way related to shield maintenance, so now they do. Best case scenario is that there are ship-wide shields that extend over the bridge projectors, but when those are dropped the arrays (which may facilitate shield regeneration or shield projection specifically around the bridge or shield rebalancing or whatever) can then be attacked. This seems consistent with what we see at the Battle of Scarif as well. The fleet concentrates fire upon the lead Star Destroyer, after which they presumably collapse or overwhelm the primary shields. This allows the X-Wings of Red Squadron to fly in and hit the bridge arrays with proton torpedoes, knocking those out. At this point, the Y-Wings of Gold Squadron can then come in and unleash a volley of Ion Torpedoes that now make direct contact with the ship's hull and systems.

But please don't act like three A-Wings destroyed the Executor. Just because the film focuses on the actions of a handful of A-Wings, there's a lot going on in the background of those scenes and even more going on off camera that plays a much much greater role in the demise of the super star destroyer.

Yeah, okay. It's great that deleted scenes and novels and stuff show how much more work went into it...but that's not what made it into the film. When they made the editing choices and decided to show what they felt were the most important parts of the battle, there was a pretty clear focus on starfighters (and the Falcon). Starfighters took point and led the way on the hyperspace jump. Starfighters were all the Imperials sent to actively engage the Rebel fleet (at least initially) and starfighters were largely how the Rebels defended themselves. Starfighters went after the Nebulon B (medical), and starfighters defended it. Starfighters were what we SAW focusing fire on the Super Star Destroyer after the order was given; starfighters blasted it until we saw the warning that shields were down, then a starfighter crashed into it and wrecked the bridge.

Starfighters made the cut for the action on the screen. For better or for worse, that's clearly the impression the filmmakers decided to leave viewers with.

Of course there was quite a bit more going on. But when they decided what to show people on the screen, it was the personal-scale drama of squadrons, not the larger fleet battle. And -- just like Luke, Wedge, and Lando taking out Death Stars with key shots -- there's something very, very, Star Wars about that.

Well, it would work if Luke would actually roll a crit when he attacks.

Now *that's* a Star Wars Special Edition edit I could get behind:

"Use the F̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ Bomber Command Centre, Luke"

On the other hand,

We're playing Star Wars Armada, a game about Star Wars fleet-scale space battles. We are not playing 19th Century Naval Engagements IN SPACE.

Again, squadrons are a huge part of Star Wars fleet battles.

But if I wanted squadrons to be the most important thing in the game, I'd play X-Wing. I'm paying $50 and 120 points for a big beautiful miniature of a Star Destroyer, with an impressive Battery and high hull. It is disappointing to say the least that Norra and a bomber clutch can wipe out all my facing shields by the end of the turn with stacked BCCs and Toryrn Farr... and the best thing the ISD can do on it's own is do "maybe" two points of damage to that massed fighter ball that, on each craft, has 5 or more hull.

"Oh, take Fighters of your own" is the response. Only thing is, Intel means the bombers are no longer engaged, and Rebel fighters can easily one-shot my space superiority TIEs. That answer is also just feeding how the game is won and lost by what's in your fighter ball more than anything else.

For all that, I don't desire sweeping changes to the game. What I want is more reasons for fighters to have pause when attacking capital ships. If Cluster Bombs hit every fighter in a firing arc, then we'd be talking. Right now Rebel fighters have nothing to fear from capital ships, except maybe Flichette Torps. And if they miss, a proper bomber list will make that 47 point Raider Vanish instantly. Problem solved, now every other capital ship in that list is open game.

I've faced a strong fighter ball for an opponent in nearly every game of Armada since wave 2 was released. I'm very tired of feeling I don't have a tool to effectively fight it without over-specializing.

I just lost another game in our area to bombers. =)

And exactly this: I'm very tired of feeling like I don't have a tool to effectively fight it without joining it.

Mass squadrons are much better than a small set of squadrons, and i found out today, 75 doesn't even cut it. probably more like 90-100 points.

And really yes. Why even bother with large ships anymore.

And really yes. Why even bother with large ships anymore.

On the other hand,

We're playing Star Wars Armada, a game about Star Wars fleet-scale space battles. We are not playing 19th Century Naval Engagements IN SPACE.

Again, squadrons are a huge part of Star Wars fleet battles.

But if I wanted squadrons to be the most important thing in the game, I'd play X-Wing. I'm paying $50 and 120 points for a big beautiful miniature of a Star Destroyer, with an impressive Battery and high hull. It is disappointing to say the least that Norra and a bomber clutch can wipe out all my facing shields by the end of the turn with stacked BCCs and Toryrn Farr... and the best thing the ISD can do on it's own is do "maybe" two points of damage to that massed fighter ball that, on each craft, has 5 or more hull.

"Oh, take Fighters of your own" is the response. Only thing is, Intel means the bombers are no longer engaged, and Rebel fighters can easily one-shot my space superiority TIEs. That answer is also just feeding how the game is won and lost by what's in your fighter ball more than anything else.

For all that, I don't desire sweeping changes to the game. What I want is more reasons for fighters to have pause when attacking capital ships. If Cluster Bombs hit every fighter in a firing arc, then we'd be talking. Right now Rebel fighters have nothing to fear from capital ships, except maybe Flichette Torps. And if they miss, a proper bomber list will make that 47 point Raider Vanish instantly. Problem solved, now every other capital ship in that list is open game.

I've faced a strong fighter ball for an opponent in nearly every game of Armada since wave 2 was released. I'm very tired of feeling I don't have a tool to effectively fight it without over-specializing.

I just lost another game in our area to bombers. =)

And exactly this: I'm very tired of feeling like I don't have a tool to effectively fight it without joining it.

Mass squadrons are much better than a small set of squadrons, and i found out today, 75 doesn't even cut it. probably more like 90-100 points.

And really yes. Why even bother with large ships anymore.

1. because large ships need 2-3 turns of bombing to die, not 1.

2. why are 75 points of intercepting squadrons unable to cut it? all you have to do is spam squadron commands and try to kill escorts and dengar or moldy crow/whatever intel there is.

am not saying its easy, NO WARGAME TACTIC IS. but you know what costs about 75 points more or less?

-4 x X-wings and Corran Horn.

-Dutch, Wedge, Tycho and Dash Rendar.

-Mauler Mithel, 2 x TIE advanceds, Valen Rudor, 2 x TIE Interceptors.

-SEVEN FREAKIN TIE INTERCEPTORS. SEVEN.

cant see how those fighter wings with spammed squadron commands and proper placement cant disrupt squadron formations. seriously, all you gotta do is start damaging escorts/intel squadrons to force them to attack your squadrons instead of your ships. just buy 1-2 turns of that. then your ships go for the enemy carriers. will t be hard/requiring proper play? OF COURSE IT WILL, AND IT SHOULD.

now, if all you wanna do against a large bomber force is "move in the squadron phase to engage, hopefully to avoid playing the squadrons minigame" then you lose because of your failing. because of getting outplayed.

AllWings thank you for that well researched sustained post.

Critias I do agree squadrons hit hard in the Star Wars universe but I'll make a few humble points.

The on screen focus on the Falcon and fighters made made for exciting scenes vs mainly capital ship duels and by the time of Return of the Jedi everyone loved seeing the Falcon in action.

As far as squadrons leading the way it makes sense to send in your skirmishers/light units first. They can react quicker and give the bigger ships more time to maneuver

The emperor had a plan when he only sent the fighters to engage the rebel fleet... didn't work

Rebels defended with squadrons and everything else they had

I think it had to be a squadron shot for the Death Star kill as the capital ships were too large to get inside the Death Star

most people dont really have a problem with squadrons' role.

they have a problem with the game not being (according to them) different-enough from x-wing. they play x-wing and hence seperate the two games in a "x-wing is squadrons, armada is capital ships" flawed fashion. the realty is "x-wing is smalltime unit/skirmish warfare, armada is army warfare with fleets" but they refuse to see...

And don't forget the Battle of Endor, when a pair of A-Wings took down the forward shields on a Super Star Destroyer, then a third A-Wing took out the bridge.

Like it or not, squadrons punch above their weight class in the Star Wars universe. That includes in the Armada game, sometimes.

Umm, yea no. As someone who spent an awfully long time studying every bit of material about the Battle of Endor scenes that I could find, let me disavow you of this common misconception.

The A-Wings knocked out the bridge array with volleys of Concussion Missiles only after the shields of the Executor had been dropped by the concerted firepower of over eight MC80 Mon Calamari cruisers. If you look out of the Executor's bridge and behind the fighters during those scenes, there are a sea of MC80s firing into the Executor. The battle against the SSD was a much more substantial part of the movie, and in both the novelization of RotJ and the original story boards and script, it featured as substantial focus of the space battle. It was cut due to time, but you can find on YouTube, for instance, deleted scenes with General Madine on the bridge of a Mon Cal cruiser in the heat of the battle (it was his task force of cruisers that pummeled the Executor's shields down). While Green Squadron attacked the port array, which we see the culmination of in the film, Blue Squadron was also simultaneously attacking the starboard array. But of course all scenes with Blue Squadron were also cut from the final film (see the deleted scenes with the Mon Cal and Sullustan B-Wing pilots, for instance), though you can see when the Executor goes down that both port and starboard arrays have been destroyed.

It's also worth noting that originally, and at the time of RotJ, the domes on top of Star Destroyer bridges were not shield generators or shield projectors, but were rather sensor and antennae arrays (and indeed they even look like arrays of the "real world"). While the A-Wings blow them up and cause the ship to shake and the bridge officer to cry "Sir, we've lost our real deflectors" it's merely correlation but not causation. The shields collapse from the concentrated fire of the Mon Cals surrounding the Executor, at which point the A-Wings can then bombard the sensor arrays, which is also the point at which the bridge crew notices and alerts Admiral Piett that the shields have failed. This makes sense, since it'd be just plain stupid to have the shield generators/projectors of a ship exposed externally and not even protected by the very shields they are producing. But, for better or worse, it entered into the common wisdom of Star Wars--due to misconceptions like you've expressed here--that those domes are in some way related to shield maintenance, so now they do. Best case scenario is that there are ship-wide shields that extend over the bridge projectors, but when those are dropped the arrays (which may facilitate shield regeneration or shield projection specifically around the bridge or shield rebalancing or whatever) can then be attacked. This seems consistent with what we see at the Battle of Scarif as well. The fleet concentrates fire upon the lead Star Destroyer, after which they presumably collapse or overwhelm the primary shields. This allows the X-Wings of Red Squadron to fly in and hit the bridge arrays with proton torpedoes, knocking those out. At this point, the Y-Wings of Gold Squadron can then come in and unleash a volley of Ion Torpedoes that now make direct contact with the ship's hull and systems.

But please don't act like three A-Wings destroyed the Executor. Just because the film focuses on the actions of a handful of A-Wings, there's a lot going on in the background of those scenes and even more going on off camera that plays a much much greater role in the demise of the super star destroyer.

I'm not gonna weigh in on the overarching debate going on in this thread, but this post is too awesome to merely "like". Very interesting read.

Yeah, okay. It's great that deleted scenes and novels and stuff show how much more work went into it...but that's not what made it into the film. When they made the editing choices and decided to show what they felt were the most important parts of the battle, there was a pretty clear focus on starfighters (and the Falcon). Starfighters took point and led the way on the hyperspace jump. Starfighters were all the Imperials sent to actively engage the Rebel fleet (at least initially) and starfighters were largely how the Rebels defended themselves. Starfighters went after the Nebulon B (medical), and starfighters defended it. Starfighters were what we SAW focusing fire on the Super Star Destroyer after the order was given; starfighters blasted it until we saw the warning that shields were down, then a starfighter crashed into it and wrecked the bridge.

Starfighters made the cut for the action on the screen. For better or for worse, that's clearly the impression the filmmakers decided to leave viewers with.

Of course there was quite a bit more going on. But when they decided what to show people on the screen, it was the personal-scale drama of squadrons, not the larger fleet battle. And -- just like Luke, Wedge, and Lando taking out Death Stars with key shots -- there's something very, very, Star Wars about that.

I mean, okay you "win" if that's what you need. But, even in the **** final cut of the film, they do pay a fair amount of attention to the SHIPS as well as the FIGHTERS. Bear in mind, Lando advises Ackbar to move the fleet into point blank range and engage the star destroyers, where they'll take a few of them with them. In literally every fighter scene outside of the Death Star II's superstructure, we see Rebel ships engaged with Imperial ships (e.g., the eight Mon Calamari star cruisers assaulting the Executor visible from the bridge shots with Piett). Ackbar tells the fleet (e.g., not just the fighters) to attack that "super star destroyer." We see Ackbar's sigh of relief and his bridge crew celebrating when the SSD crashes into the Death Star II's surface (e.g., not fighter pilot reactions).

Does the film focus on fighters? Sure. Are Squadrons powerful in the films and should they be meaningful in Armada? Absolutely, Squadrons are my personal favorite part of Armada. I realize it's not a position everyone shares, but squadrons being relevant to space battles is thematically appropriate.

So we don't disagree there. I'm disagreeing with your point that three A-Wings destroyed the Executor. Even with the final cut of the film's focus on fighters (though I'm not sure why off-screen action should not count....like do you think only one Rebel Transport escaped Hoth because that's all we see in the films?), there is plenty of evidence to conclude that the Execturor's demise was the result of a hell of a lot more effort than just three A-Wings. If you still disagree, than either you're blind or irredeemably stubborn.

I think, aside from "blind" and "irredeemably stubborn," there's certainly a third option, in that maybe you're taking all this a little more seriously than I am. Ease up, man. Nobody's writing a thesis here. You're putting a lot of effort into correcting an off-handed statement made to remind people that squadrons have -- for better or worse -- always been highlighted in Star Wars. You seem bound and determined to win an argument, here, when I'm just saying "Yeah, but don't forget squadrons/starfighters have always been the stars of the show."

I think, aside from "blind" and "irredeemably stubborn," there's certainly a third option, in that maybe you're taking all this a little more seriously than I am. Ease up, man. Nobody's writing a thesis here. You're putting a lot of effort into correcting an off-handed statement made to remind people that squadrons have -- for better or worse -- always been highlighted in Star Wars. You seem bound and determined to win an argument, here, when I'm just saying "Yeah, but don't forget squadrons/starfighters have always been the stars of the show."

We absolutely disagree with you that squadrons should be the star of the show.

In terms of the game, 2 B wings, 30points, do more damage than a 51 point Nebulon.

A decimator can kill a VSD on its own.

These are horrifically imbalanced.

Everyone keeps screaming that squadrons are the end all be all of Star Wars fleet combat. To that we say nay: we wanted big ships, we wanted ship. We didn't want to shove 10 squadrons around on the table. And you can't beat that currently.

Go ahead: Show me a list that has a strong time winning vs mass squadrons/fighters/bombers 8-10 squads, BCCs and Yavaris and Rieekan.

--

Also, he did basically "write a thesis" (off not the length of a real thesis lol). He studied the extra footage, the extra info, he wrote a big explanatory post.

We care a lot. And telling us its no big deal just really means, "shut up. the game is fine the way we like it now and not the way you like it".

"We", "We", "We", all the way home...

I'm not saying your argument is invalid, Blail (its not, and worth listening to)... But dang, the Hyperbole is strong with you

"We", "We", "We", all the way home...

I'm not saying your argument is invalid, Blail (its not, and worth listening to)... But dang, the Hyperbole is strong with you

I'm trying to figure out what makes you assume 'we' means everyone on the forum, as opposed to 'Allwingsstandby and I'. or even 'everyone who also thinks squadrons aren't the focus of the game'.

Second, do you want to show me a list example for mass squadron countering?

I think, aside from "blind" and "irredeemably stubborn," there's certainly a third option, in that maybe you're taking all this a little more seriously than I am. Ease up, man. Nobody's writing a thesis here. You're putting a lot of effort into correcting an off-handed statement made to remind people that squadrons have -- for better or worse -- always been highlighted in Star Wars. You seem bound and determined to win an argument, here, when I'm just saying "Yeah, but don't forget squadrons/starfighters have always been the stars of the show."

We absolutely disagree with you that squadrons should be the star of the show.

In terms of the game, 2 B wings, 30points, do more damage than a 51 point Nebulon.

A decimator can kill a VSD on its own.

These are horrifically imbalanced.

Everyone keeps screaming that squadrons are the end all be all of Star Wars fleet combat. To that we say nay: we wanted big ships, we wanted ship. We didn't want to shove 10 squadrons around on the table. And you can't beat that currently.

Go ahead: Show me a list that has a strong time winning vs mass squadrons/fighters/bombers 8-10 squads, BCCs and Yavaris and Rieekan.

--

Also, he did basically "write a thesis" (off not the length of a real thesis lol). He studied the extra footage, the extra info, he wrote a big explanatory post.

We care a lot. And telling us its no big deal just really means, "shut up. the game is fine the way we like it now and not the way you like it".

Do me a favor, man, and show me where I've said they should be the star of the show, instead of me constantly making statements like "for better or worse," or "like it or not," etc, etc. I'm not saying what should be, I'm saying what is; Star Wars has always had a tendency to make starfighters larger than life, and has always gone out of its way to let them play -- individually, even -- very pivotal roles in huge engagements. What's true to Star Wars' vibe isn't necessarily what's true to real life military history, is all I'm saying.

Relax. Please. I'm not on the other side of some line drawn in blood here, man. Put down the torches and pitchforks, cool?

I think, aside from "blind" and "irredeemably stubborn," there's certainly a third option, in that maybe you're taking all this a little more seriously than I am. Ease up, man. Nobody's writing a thesis here. You're putting a lot of effort into correcting an off-handed statement made to remind people that squadrons have -- for better or worse -- always been highlighted in Star Wars. You seem bound and determined to win an argument, here, when I'm just saying "Yeah, but don't forget squadrons/starfighters have always been the stars of the show."

We absolutely disagree with you that squadrons should be the star of the show.

In terms of the game, 2 B wings, 30points, do more damage than a 51 point Nebulon.

A decimator can kill a VSD on its own.

These are horrifically imbalanced.

Everyone keeps screaming that squadrons are the end all be all of Star Wars fleet combat. To that we say nay: we wanted big ships, we wanted ship. We didn't want to shove 10 squadrons around on the table. And you can't beat that currently.

Go ahead: Show me a list that has a strong time winning vs mass squadrons/fighters/bombers 8-10 squads, BCCs and Yavaris and Rieekan.

--

Also, he did basically "write a thesis" (off not the length of a real thesis lol). He studied the extra footage, the extra info, he wrote a big explanatory post.

We care a lot. And telling us its no big deal just really means, "shut up. the game is fine the way we like it now and not the way you like it".

Do me a favor, man, and show me where I've said they should be the star of the show, instead of me constantly making statements like "for better or worse," or "like it or not," etc, etc. I'm not saying what should be, I'm saying what is; Star Wars has always had a tendency to make starfighters larger than life, and has always gone out of its way to let them play -- individually, even -- very pivotal roles in huge engagements. What's true to Star Wars' vibe isn't necessarily what's true to real life military history, is all I'm saying.

Relax. Please. I'm not on the other side of some line drawn in blood here, man. Put down the torches and pitchforks, cool?

I just said we disagree with you...

I'm not sure where my pitchforks are.

Although I will say I'm implying that people have tried to shove that perception of Star Wars in people's faces. And Allowing made a pretty strong statement as to why that might be not as true as you'd want to believe.

When you say "I'm saying what is", we're pointing out that has its flaws.

(Dras, I'm still waiting on that "we" explanation too.)

"We", "We", "We", all the way home...

I'm not saying your argument is invalid, Blail (its not, and worth listening to)... But dang, the Hyperbole is strong with you

I'm trying to figure out what makes you assume 'we' means everyone on the forum, as opposed to 'Allwingsstandby and I'. or even 'everyone who also thinks squadrons aren't the focus of the game'.

Second, do you want to show me a list example for mass squadron countering?

First up, its how "We" is presented there. "We" do this. No listing of who you are talking about. "We" unattached is less explanatory than "AllWings and I", or even "We - Who do not like squadrons"...

It was presented - to me - in such a manner as someone standing up and making an impassioned speech on the manner... And in fact, I was applauding you for it - stating that I felt your argument had merit... (did you miss that?)

And on the list:

No point.

I take mass Squadrons all the time. Ask some of the Calgarians here (and even some of the Edmontonians).... I love squadrons, I take no less than 100 points of squadrons in the vast majority of my lists...

Doesn't matter.

I have a Win-Loss record that No-Sane person would attribute... What little manner of my success has come when I have eschewed a lot of squadrons for gimmicks (The Double Interdictor-Nose-Punch, for example).

In short:

I take all the squadrons because they're fun to me. I lose. Ergo, I cannot see them as Unbeatable, as you do. Different Metas, right?

All it does is highlight how uselessly pointless it is to attempt to take something that is compartmentalised ALL AROUND THE WORLD, and make it ONE SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD ANSWER.

Kind like racial profiling, y'know?