As part of this not-really-new-just-on-the-forums effort to generate strategy discussion content, I am providing a question to the forums. Do you think about capital ships in your list, and in what way do you approach them, whether in your own list, or across the table from you?

Following the tradition of my previous thread, I'm going to add a little bit of context to my question. This definition is rubbish; so is this one. From an engineering perspective, I'm willing to accept the distinction the latter definition makes, but wonder if perhaps there wasn't a better term (I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it exists). Rather, I mean the naval definition of capital ship, summed neatly in this saying: "If the capital ships are beaten, the navy is beaten. But if the rest of the navy is beaten, the capital ships can still operate. [The other] characteristic that defines capital ships is that their main opponent is each other." If anyone wishes to make a tangent into whether or not Mahan was a crazy old man is welcome (since this is a riff on his theories), but let's PM.

What does this mean to you as an Armada player? Obviously when an Imperial or Home One is on the table, they are a capital ship, but what about other cases? Is there a points requirement after which a ship is so important to not lose it that becomes a "capital ship"? What of ships that are the lynchpin of your tactical plans regardless of actual point value, be they the flagship (flotilla or otherwise), Admonition or Demolisher, or Interdictor with G-8? Perhaps most interestingly, are there capital ships in MSU fleets that rely on swarms of Raiders or TRC90s, and are carriers like the Pelta the capital ships in Yavaris bomber lists? And when you're done answering all those questions, how do you approach your enemy's capital ships? Do you prioritize his points-heavy ships, the tactical lynchpins (sometimes the same targets, sometimes not)? How do you identify them? Discuss! And remember, there are no wrong answers or stupid questions (no comment on askers of those questions ).

Okay, let's look at the phrase itself; Capital Ship. The word capital mean it takes an immense amount of investment or resource to do. Ergo, A capital ship is something that requires a large amount of resource or investment that ordinarily a single person or small group would not be able to muster, usually it's a city-state, nation, or empire who is capable of mustering capital ships easily. The trireme was the capital ship of her day, the sailing ship of line was the capital ship of her day. The steel battleship was the capital ship of her day.

2 minutes ago, Alexhurlbut said:

Okay, let's look at the phrase itself; Capital Ship. The word capital mean it takes an immense amount of investment or resource to do. Ergo, A capital ship is something that requires a large amount of resource or investment that ordinarily a single person or small group would not be able to muster, usually it's a city-state, nation, or empire who is capable of mustering capital ships easily. The trireme was the capital ship of her day, the sailing ship of line was the capital ship of her day. The steel battleship was the capital ship of her day.

While an amusing jaunt through history, and one I agree with, that doesn't much answer the topic at hand. Is capital ship even a useful term of reference for Armada? Is it a good identifier of fleet components, or of priority targets, or is it just more jargon to clog the forums with?

For myself, I would hold that neither of the above ideas I offered to identify a capital ship in a fleet is sufficient, though both are necessary. I would define a capital ship as any ship whose unanswered loss significantly impairs its owner's ability to win the match. While perhaps a tad vague, it is also flexible. One person in my area recently was experimenting with a naked Assault Frigate as a flanker. While expensive, the ship was very unlikely to be lost without some sort of return value, and the rest of the list meant that even in games it never fired, it wasn't a drain on his combat capability. By contrast, an Assault Frigate in an Ackbar gunline list (especially a well-upgraded one) is a capital ship; it provides a large amount of firepower and represents a significant investment, both in points and tactical thought. I'm skeptical you could build a list where an ISD or a Mon Calamari battleship was not a capital ship, but whether there is a floor to "capital ship" especially with lifeboats (flotillas or pleasure yachts, I don't judge) or Pelta/Yavaris lists I think is an interesting question.

This is my line of thinking...I don't know if it is right or even makes sense, but here it is.

By using what you outlined above I think of a capital ship in this game is any ship that you invest 90 or greater points in. At that point it is almost 1/4 of your budget and therfore, if you lose it then it you better make sure it is taking something of equal or grater value with it. In general, I think most medium or large based ships fall into this 90ish point range. I'm not sure if you can have a "capital ship" that is on a small base. Well...maybe a Pelta that is light-up like a Christmas tree and also has your Admiral on it.

The problem with the term "Capital Ship" is that it has been used incorrectly by the Star Wars community (long before FFG and Armada) that it has come to mean any ship bigger than say the falcon. The funny thing is the movies use the term cruiser to describe these ships. Which is a much better descriptor (though it did mean something different when compared to its age of sail counterparts). But now that we have Armada I find it useful to talk about ships like the ISD and both MC80 types ships as ships of a different kind from others. These ships do fit very well into a historical usage of the word capital ships. I would love to use the word for this. Unfortunately words mean what people use them for and to a lot a people, in Star Wars a capital ship is anything bigger than a squadron. And using a word that means something different to different parties just leads to poor communication and semantic arguments.

2 minutes ago, Hrathen said:

The problem with the term "Capital Ship" is that it has been used incorrectly by the Star Wars community (long before FFG and Armada) that it has come to mean any ship bigger than say the falcon.

Hardly just the SW community. The term changed meaning, at least in regards to science fiction, a long time ago. That happens in language.

Just now, Forgottenlore said:

Hardly just the SW community. The term changed meaning, at least in regards to science fiction, a long time ago. That happens in language.

I was going to point this out but ya beat me to it. For most sci-fi anything larger than the largest star fighter is typically a capitol ship.

6 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Hardly just the SW community. The term changed meaning, at least in regards to science fiction, a long time ago. That happens in language.

Which is sad because Star Wars navies rely on a Capital Ship naval doctrine, where the navy builds as many as big and as powerful ships as they can. There was a time when if it wasn't an ISD and it was in the imperial navy it was EU.

I tend to think of capital ships as the largest ones a faction can bring. They are the force that breaks enemy lines and serves as a rallying point for your forces, so with that in mind, in regards to Armada, it's the ship or ships that my fleet centers itself on. The ship that if I lose, I'm in trouble.

Not every fleet fits that frame work.

In a Yavaris, 2 GR-75, 2 CR90 list with a smattering of squads, the Neb is the capital ship. An ISD with a Raider, Demo and Goz, it's the ISD. dual Vics, dual Goz with Tie/B, it's the Vics.

As for whats out for Armada? If it were Battlefleet Gothic it'd be pretty much this as that game was pretty wet-navy based:

Battleships:. ImpStar, MC80, MC80 Liberty

Battlecruisers: Interdictor, Assault Frigate, Victory

Cruisers: Neb-B, Pelta, Gladiator, Arquittens

Frigates:. CR-90, Raider

The MC-30 would probably be somewhere between a frigate (hit points) and a cruiser (weapons compliment). Lots of games would probably have it as a Light Cruiser. Everything above a frigate is a "capitol ship".

Mechanically, though, in Armada squadrons are a lot like other Armada-scale games' frigates. Which if you consider that, Raiders CR-90's and MC-30s would all bump up to be Light Cruisers.

The age of sail may hold the key to this little argument.

In Star Wars, Capital. Ships are mostly 100m or bigger all others are starships. In the age of sail you exchange these terms for Rated & Unrated ships. While most Rated ships were of a certain size or weight of broadside, all that was really required to make the most pathetic brig or cutter (typically a Lieutenant's command) into a Rated ship, is the presence of a Post Captain as its official commanding officer.

Anything. CR90 or up is a Capital ship, but a Flotilla can be temporarily a capital ship by placing a high ranking officer aboard.

Not all capital ships are equal, but I don't think the presence of an ISD, makes a Raider any less of a capital ship. Nor dose the price or size of any ship in Armada currently, make it "Too big to lose". Any ship can be expendable, if you can still pull out a victory. Who wouldn't be willing to lose a fully loaded ISD II to table their opponent?

Not sure that ever fleet could fit into this point of view...

I lost 2 VSD and 1 Goz in my 2VSD2Goz fleet and managed to win 9-2.

Would say that's a pyrrhic victory considering you have only one surviving 'ship'.

The term "capital ship" is from the 20th Century. It was originally used to refer to battleships (and battlecruisers). Since Star Wars borrows a great deal from WWII - this is a good starting point.

But, as has been mentioned earlier, SciFi has bastardized the word to mean anything larger than fighter/shuttle.

1 hour ago, Alexhurlbut said:

Would say that's a pyrrhic victory considering you have only one surviving 'ship'.

Sure but if you were the looser would you feel proud about your 'pyrrihic' defeat?

I didn't know until I saw it that any of my ships were so capital.

It does not really have meaning for armada because there is no set of ships that are the main opponent to each other and cause you to loss without them.

The reality is a couple of CR90s can take a star destroyer and you can win the game/ cripple any ship with a gozanti, wulf and expanded hangers+ A nasty set of 4 bombers.

although since you lose when you loss all your ships I would say all ships are capital ships.

I usually just think of all large based ships as "capital ships" since I picked up that term from games that used it as a way of referring to the biggest and most powerful ships available. So in real life terms battleships and aircraft carriers would all qualify, regardless of which one is the flagship. Exceptions for those really small carriers that (I think) were phased out after WWII.

Escort Carrier. Was meant to free up the bigger 'fleet' carriers from AWS and escort duties, as well being convenient ferries to bring plane replacements.

16 hours ago, Hrathen said:

The problem with the term "Capital Ship" is that it has been used incorrectly by the Star Wars community (long before FFG and Armada) that it has come to mean any ship bigger than say the falcon. The funny thing is the movies use the term cruiser to describe these ships. Which is a much better descriptor (though it did mean something different when compared to its age of sail counterparts). But now that we have Armada I find it useful to talk about ships like the ISD and both MC80 types ships as ships of a different kind from others. These ships do fit very well into a historical usage of the word capital ships. I would love to use the word for this. Unfortunately words mean what people use them for and to a lot a people, in Star Wars a capital ship is anything bigger than a squadron. And using a word that means something different to different parties just leads to poor communication and semantic arguments.

*I'm responding to everyone else here too, just picking this quote since it's first.

And you're absolutely right. Star Wars' definition of capital ship, the current one and the old EU one as linked in my original post, are rubbish definitions that only barely apply. I wanted to think about how to define that term specifically in the context of Armada. And regarding losing your capital ships, my definition attempted to account for that with the turn of phrase "unanswered loss". What an unanswered loss will obviously vary situation to situation, but losing an ISD for a tabling, or two Vics and a Gozanti for a 9-2 win are hardly unanswered losses.

1 hour ago, GiledPallaeon said:

*I'm responding to everyone else here too, just picking this quote since it's first.

And you're absolutely right. Star Wars' definition of capital ship, the current one and the old EU one as linked in my original post, are rubbish definitions that only barely apply. I wanted to think about how to define that term specifically in the context of Armada. And regarding losing your capital ships, my definition attempted to account for that with the turn of phrase "unanswered loss". What an unanswered loss will obviously vary situation to situation, but losing an ISD for a tabling, or two Vics and a Gozanti for a 9-2 win are hardly unanswered losses.

Maybe is my wrong understanding of English but with your definition, a z-95 is a capitalism ship as long as it was lost and not answered.

14 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Maybe is my wrong understanding of English but with your definition, a z-95 is a capitalism ship as long as it was lost and not answered.

Your understanding isn't wrong, you're just using the snippet I copied out of context. The full definition I proposed was any ship whose unanswered loss significantly impairs its owner's ability to win the match. Note that a ship does not have to die to earn the classification, nor does it have to destroy things to be "answered". Now that's a fairly loose definition, but I think it's good enough as a starting point. It's a derivative of the general, IRL definition I listed in the original post, "If the capital ships are beaten, the [fleet] is beaten. But if the rest of the [fleet] is beaten, the capital ships can still operate." So for example, a Ackbar TRCR90 is not really a capital ship (unless carrying Fishface himself), but a Pelta with Adar Tallon, AFFM (especially in a B-wing list), Expanded Hangar Bay, etc. could be.

17 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Your understanding isn't wrong, you're just using the snippet I copied out of context. The full definition I proposed was any ship whose unanswered loss significantly impairs its owner's ability to win the match. Note that a ship does not have to die to earn the classification, nor does it have to destroy things to be "answered". Now that's a fairly loose definition, but I think it's good enough as a starting point. It's a derivative of the general, IRL definition I listed in the original post, "If the capital ships are beaten, the [fleet] is beaten. But if the rest of the [fleet] is beaten, the capital ships can still operate." So for example, a Ackbar TRCR90 is not really a capital ship (unless carrying Fishface himself), but a Pelta with Adar Tallon, AFFM (especially in a B-wing list), Expanded Hangar Bay, etc. could be.

Ok. The I understood you right the first time but not the second. That was the reason I put my fleet as example. I was loosing ships round by round but the capacity of operating didn't be affected, at least not much enough to prevent me from destroy the enemy fleet (but a guppy).

Each ship of my fleet achieves the second clause of the definition as they still operate while the others ships was destroyed but not the first clause as if the ship is destroyed the fleet still operate. Maybe I have 4 capital ships. I don't say that this situation is general and probably I come to it cause I fly 134 points on bombers and my admiral just provide me navigation without spending commands on it (JJ). Does it probably a corner case? Maybe. I just tried to figure out how to fit your idea (what I found pretty interesting) on the fleet I was playing recently.

Wikipedia has a good little snippet on this: "a capital ship is a leading or primary ship in a fleet". With the "primary" bit in mind, I'd say thats the linchpin ship of the fleet, one that drives its synergies/ supports all the others via squad activations, fire power etc.

On 14/04/2017 at 1:07 AM, AegisGrimm said:

As for whats out for Armada? If it were Battlefleet Gothic it'd be pretty much this as that game was pretty wet-navy based:

Battleships:. ImpStar, MC80, MC80 Liberty

Battlecruisers: Interdictor, Assault Frigate, Victory

Cruisers: Neb-B, Pelta, Gladiator, Arquittens

Frigates:. CR-90, Raider

The MC-30 would probably be somewhere between a frigate (hit points) and a cruiser (weapons compliment). Lots of games would probably have it as a Light Cruiser. Everything above a frigate is a "capitol ship".

Mechanically, though, in Armada squadrons are a lot like other Armada-scale games' frigates. Which if you consider that, Raiders CR-90's and MC-30s would all bump up to be Light Cruisers.

On a slight tangent, I wouldn't regard the Interdictor or Vic as battlecruisers. Generally speaking, compared to a battleship, a battlecruiser trades out either firepower or armour (more usually the latter) in return for speed.

So while the Assault frigate might qualify, I'd actually regard the Liberty as the most battlecrusier-like ship - it's far more mobile, but at the same time it not quite as tough as similar ships in its class.

As for the Interdictor or (especially) the Victory - let's just say that speed and maneuverability are not defining features...

3 minutes ago, Hedgehogmech said:

On a slight tangent, I wouldn't regard the Interdictor or Vic as battlecruisers. Generally speaking, compared to a battleship, a battlecruiser trades out either firepower or armour (more usually the latter) in return for speed.

Heavy Cruisers might fit them better - those are sometimes slower than comparable Cruisers.