I’ve been bouncing this around for awhile in my head, but an offhand comment in Green Knight’s errata thread (tangent, I’m so proud of us for not turning that into a flame war, great job guys) convinced me to finally write this up. Much of my background focuses on naval strategy, operations, etc., both in the present and in the recent past (20th century). So with that in mind, I have collated something of an organization to the types of ships the starships in Armada play, based on their role and capabilities. A note, I know that almost every ship in Armada can be forced to play the role of carrier, so I’m mostly focused on ship-to-ship capabilities and design. I’d like to see what people think of my delineation and comparisons, and of a note I’ll save for the end.
Let’s start with the light units. Both flotillas rather defy conventional denomination schemes, but for the sake of it I’m filing them under corvette-carriers (that’s carriers that are corvettes, not ships carrying corvettes, for the record). The best real world analogs are the Bogue style escort carriers built by the Allies during World War 2, cheap, slow, expendable(ish), and kept around not to fight other combatants face to face, but to organize squadrons and perform critical fleet support functions. They are, I will note, the only ships that are carriers in the American sense, which is to say without significant internal armament.
Next up are four small ships often grouped together that I am going to break apart for doctrine reasons, the CR90, the Raider, the MC30, and the Gladiator. For the CR90, I would classify this ship as a frigate. It’s fast and agile (frigate-built), and effective as a light screening ship capable of pitched combat, but not a dedicated killer. Even with TRCs, CR90s have a rather standoffish approach to combat, and they certainly have relatively low damage output compared to many other options in game. They exist as flanking fire support, drawing attention and energy away from the main battle group, and with titles like Tantive IV, they fulfill a similar support function in fleets to the corvettes. An example comparison is the recently retired Perry class frigate.
Raiders, MC30s, and Gladiators by contrast are destroyers. Just as fast and agile as the CR90, instead of plinking away at the edge of battle they dive right in, gunning for high damage output and destruction. Raiders are destroyers with an anti-aircraft (squadron) bent, like the WW2 era Fletcher class, whereas Gladiators and MC30s destroy ships, pure and simple. A more modern comparison for the latter pair would be the Cold War era Soviet Sovremenny class destroyers, or the American Spruance class destroyer. These are the aggressive units in a fleet, with high dice-hull ratios, and often high points-hull ratios as well. Like frigates, destroyers typically operate in groups, often with cruisers or a battleship present, but wolfpacks are not necessarily unviable.
The next category is light cruisers, filled by the Nebulon-B, the Arquitens, and the Pelta. These are ships that start to form the backbone of fleets. While not necessarily as high-performance as destroyers or frigates, light cruisers are found in many fleets as the flexible muscle, and the ships where a loss is actually possibly a significant degradation to fleet fighting power. By counterpoint, they are also usually the lightest ship that can safely wander off into danger from its own angle (e.g. Yavaris plus squads). They are equally adept at organizing squadrons, particularly the Pelta, and fighting ships face-to-face, and offer (generally somewhat) improved durability over destroyers and frigates. Sending a light cruiser to fight a destroyer is not a guaranteed victory for the cruiser, but odds are in its favor when played well. For historical comparison, I would compare the Nebulon to the Omaha class scout cruiser, the Arquitens to the Leander class, and the Pelta to a (somewhat slower) Cleveland class, with the Independence class light carrier filling in the Command version as the game’s only escort carrier. As a rule of thumb, the lightest most fleets will go for flagships is a light cruiser for these reasons, barring the odd destroyer swarm (e.g. Clonisher) or a lifeboat flotilla.
There is a case to be made that the durability of the Gladiator and MC30 slide them into the light cruiser category, leaving the Raider alone like the CR90. In some configurations, particularly MC30 Scout Frigates in Ackbar fleets with Gunnery Teams as long range harassers, MC30s provide the long range fire and moderate durability common to CLs, while the Gladiator’s brace token means it can be more survivable than an Arquitens. However, and I expect this to be a point of discussion, I have left them as destroyers, albeit heavy destroyers, by virtue of their aggressive playstyle to maximize black dice effectiveness, and the design intent that is less intent on a survivable multi-role platform than a dedicated attack unit. There is not actually a good comparison in real naval strategy for that much firepower packed into a platform both that expensive and that delicate, but given that the entire point of the ships is to deliver dice to target, I stand by the destroyer classification.
Above light cruisers are heavy cruisers, the Assault Frigate MK 2, the Victory, and the Interdictor. These are all solid ships, capable of holding a battle line, and with support from either another heavy cruiser or multiple light units effectively challenging enemy battleships. These ships are often the flagships of fleets without the dreadnoughts, and are fully in the range of capital ships in the classical sense. They are able to fight, and fight well, without the lighter units, but if the lighter units attempt to fight without them against superior forces, the odds are not in their favor. Heavy cruisers are most notable over light cruisers for the significant improvement in durability they offer, in addition to the usual firepower improvement. The Interdictor is something of the odd man out here, as it is fully as durable, and situationally as powerful as the other two heavy cruisers, but performs a far more subtle fleet support function than the other two ships that doesn't have a good real equivalent. A good general comparison for all of them is the Baltimore class or the Slava class cruiser, with the Saipan class carrier channeling the carrier capability.
The final category of starship is the battleship. This is the Imperial class Star Destroyer, the MC80, and the MC80 Liberty. These are the ultimate capital ships, with little to fear on the table besides each other, the ships they are built to fight. They fully meet the classic definition of a battleship, capable of both weathering and dealing incredible amounts of damage. They also are capable of providing incredible squadron support capabilities like fleet carriers, and are priced like all that to boot. A further subdivision might be that the Imperial and the Liberty are the category of fast battleships, providing (relative) speed and firepower, while Home One is a World War One style dreadnought with thick armor (shields and defensive retrofits) at the cost of speed. Historical comparisons to the Iowa class (Imperial), Bismarck (Home One), and the Scharnhorst (Liberty) are not at all out of place.
If you are only interested in an analysis of the game as it stands right now, and no speculative nonsense, stop here. This is my large, somewhat ham-handed analysis of Armada, and an attempt to write out how I approach each ship when I am fleet-building, and analyzing opponent tactics on the table. At some point I’ll probably do a similar large writeup for squadrons, but let’s start with ships. What did you agree with? What do you think I got dead wrong? How would you tweak this for future-proofing against incoming ships?
Moving away from the current classifications, have you noticed what ship type ended up left out? Battlecruisers. (If you wish to fight me about whether or not Scharnhorst is a battlecruiser, spoiler: she isn’t, she’s a fast battleship with a very specific mission set, PM me, this is the Armada forum.) There are two overall understandings of the battlecruiser, the British version and the German version. (The Japanese version is just early fast battleships, so that doesn’t count.) The British version, invented by Admiral Jackie Fisher, focused on battleship grade ships with battleship grade guns, but cruiser-grade speeds, meaning cruiser-grade armor. These were ships like HMS Invincible, HMS Renown, and the mighty HMS Hood, intended to avoid enemy battleships and sweep away enemy cruisers with hugely superior firepower. The German approach was (surprise, surprise) the inverse, trading the biggest guns for battleship grade armor with the cruiser grade speed, often leaving German battlecruisers with firepower sufficient to cow cruisers, but less overwhelming than British types. Examples would include SMS Von der Tann and Derfflinger. A great example of the distinction is the results of the Battle of Jutland, where numerous British battlecruisers were destroyed (doing something doctrinally they had no business doing), more than one with all hands, whereas the German battlecruisers all survived (more or less) the pounding delivered by British rifles.
That’s all a very long and convoluted way of introducing my second question, what does a battlecruiser for Armada look like? Is it a more powerful MC30, a Speed 4 ship reliant on evades and shields to bear it to target? Is it closer to the Liberty, a ship with weaknesses that render it somewhat less powerful than the current battleships, but more than powerful enough to annihilate cruisers in its way? Am I barking up the wrong tree, do the fast battleships of the Imperial and Liberty varieties indicate we’ve already past that point in the evolution of Armada ship types?
