All I want is reasonable options to taking alot of squadrons. In general I want my capital ships not to feel defenseless when a medium or small bomberwing makes its run- perhaps its going to get rough, but not the sensation of being approximately naked.

I tried QLTs- frankly, not worth taking. At counter-2 maybe, but not at 1.

I tried bombs, but as a one-shot its hardly a disincentive.

The only thing other than MOAR squadrons that seems to work is very, very careful and very aggressive use of small capital ship AA. While thats fine in and of itself its a finicky solution at best.

3 hours ago, Valca said:

We only saw 1 fleet battle in the original trilogy; the fight around the second Death Star. In that fight, we saw only limited contribution from fighters. The obvious was the destruction of the Death Star. An important plot element, but doesn't tell us much about how effective fighters are against capital ships. The only other contribution we saw was the destruction of the Executor's bridge by a kamikaze A-Wing. That scene has been misinterpreted over the years. What happened was that sustained bombardment from rebel capital ships dropped the Executor's shields. The A-Wing just happened to get in at the right time. A turbolaser shot at the bridge would have done the same thing.

I don't remember anything about Rogue One's engagement except that it was asinine to stack to ISDs right next to each other. You've got turbolasers with ranges measured in miles and your tractor beams clearly have good range. Don't park 100 meters from each other...

Actually, the A-Wings took out the shield generator on top of the bridge FIRST, and then the kamikaze pilot hit. Apparently Ackbar spent a squadron token and flipped a Concentrate Fire dial. The thing is that even setting aside Legends depictions of fighters killing capships (novels, comics, the old PC TIE Fighter and X-Wing games) there are now a dozen or more canonical examples of fighters being a significant threat - at least enough to NEED your own fighters as a screen - from the Clone Wars to Rogue One to Return of the Jedi to the new novels and comics. Hell, Darth Vader almost solos a Pelta in Rebels!

They are, perhaps, not AS effective as capship versus capship - in the last episode of Rebels, Thrawn is ordered to capture the leadership so he sends fighters in to kill their ships slowly, giving them a chance to escape in pods, rather than crush them with massed ISD-1s - but they still do damage.

The main reason that we don't see ships fighting dozens of kilometers apart is because visually it would look boring - and would require us to play Armada on a table the size of a handball court. That's obvious. But in-universe, I rather suspect it's for the same reason that Battletech has effective ranges of less than a kilometer for even gauss weapons: Electronic warfare. The notion that a ship HAS to be in a certain range, otherwise targeting solutions simply won't resolve, is solid and fits the observed facts.

My problem is that squadrons are TOO resilient - the only thing that kills them effectively is other squadrons, so the threat is all one way. I really wish that the rules were something like "Whenever a squadron attacks a ship, the ship rolls its flak dice against it before that attack resolves" with the now current rules representing the commander concentrating fire on the incoming squadrons. It doesn't make much sense that point defense stops just because the big guns are firing. Doesn't really help against Rieekan Aceholes, though.

39 minutes ago, pt106 said:

So, to go back to the original topic.
As far as @Tokra idea is concerned I would respectfully but strongly disagree. The problem with "free squadrons for everyone" approach is that not everyone enjoys a full squadron game.

I think (and this is my personal opinion) that the game was not designed to handle the presence of 16+ squadrons on the table with complex range 1 interactions between different squadrons. Any squadron movement in this situation becomes a complex and precise task that I personally don't enjoy (as it becomes strategically important to exercise precise movements while not physically bumping any other squadrons during movement or range checks). I designed and played squadron-heavy fleets (both on Vassal and on a table) and I can win with them, but sometimes it's not fun for me and it's not fun for my opponent as well. At Worlds I used a squadron heavy fleet in a team tourney and while we won both games, both were against squadron heavy fleets, both went to time around round 3, and by the time the second game ended I was just glad it was over and didn't care about result. For me it wasn't fun.

I agree 100% with pt106 on this, and I'm sorry to say Tokra, forcing everyone to take the maximum # of squads would drive many players out of the game. I know at least a few players in our group would insta-quit if this was the rule.

I'm still in favor of simply reducing the max # of allowed squads, from 1/3 (134 points) to 1/4 (100 points), possibly 1/5 (80 points). This reduces the power of squads (their power vs ships increases exponentially, not linearly) and also reduces the management mess caused by 2 full squad builds facing off, something that is greatly wearing on many player's tolerance for this game, myself included. A full 134 vs 134 battle between TIE Fighters and Z-95s is neat, but is a royal PITA to manage on the table, causing for super long matches, and by the end of the game you don't want to play again for a long while.

But what about those people who feel that a 134 vs 134 battle between TIE fighters and Z-95s is wonderfully layered and strategic, is awesome to see on the table, provides for tense and gripping matches and invigorates them to want to play again?

53 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

How quickly we forget Cluster Bombs exist.

Of course we do. It's not worth remembering.

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

But what about those people who feel that a 134 vs 134 battle between TIE fighters and Z-95s is wonderfully layered and strategic, is awesome to see on the table, provides for tense and gripping matches and invigorates them to want to play again?

We have counseling for those people.

Armada is not exactly about capital ships, it simply focuses on the bigger picture, the fleet battle instead of the dogfights in X-Wing.

Now, fighters are and will always be very effetive, the best example is the battle of Scariff:

The fighters were responsible for attempting to destroy the shield,

The fighters also destroyed one of the ISD's bridge power generator

The Ion Torpedo run incapacitated one of the ISDs, ultimately leading to the Hammerhead plan

SO capital ships are obviously important, they provide cover for the fighters and create huge amounts of firepower against enemy capital ships, mainly exausting shields and weakening hulls so that the bombing runs are to full efficiency, but fighters will always be a key part in those fleet engagements. Another example is looking at the Kuat Shipyards battle, the capital ships provided cover fire, the B-Wings only had one Torpedoe each, and were covered by other fighters

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

But what about those people who feel that a 134 vs 134 battle between TIE fighters and Z-95s is wonderfully layered and strategic, is awesome to see on the table, provides for tense and gripping matches and invigorates them to want to play again?

"There's this version of X-Wing that lets you bring 300 points to the table - or 400 points total with a friend - called Epic. It's pretty cool. Have you heard of it? Now, Armada is about the big picture, so..."

I can't believe I forgot about the "134 points mandatory squadrons". No, having a separate amount for just squadrons is not good. It adds to the length of time played and doesn't solve the core problem - just makes it so that every player HAS to bring max squadrons, and whichever commanders are best at squadrons get played.

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

But what about those people who feel that a 134 vs 134 battle between TIE fighters and Z-95s is wonderfully layered and strategic, is awesome to see on the table, provides for tense and gripping matches and invigorates them to want to play again?

As long as bringing full squadrons is viable - they'll bring 134 points of squadrons and some of the matchups would be a 134 vs 134 battle that they desire. Again I don't think that the game should devolve into all-ship battle only. As long as both high-sqaudron and low squadron approaches are viable, people will somewhat control desired outcomes by the selection of the fleet that they bring.

3 hours ago, Tokra said:

Reduce the price to 1/3 of the current value. And reduce the allowed squadrons per fleet to max. 10% of the fleet (means 40 points).

Any change that requires reprinting cards is almost certainly never going to happen.

I would instead try making a game 500 points, with max 25% squadrons. That gives you 125 points of squadrons, slightly less than you can take now, and 375 points for capital ships, assuming max squadrons.

That said, I have a CRAZY idea that I would love to see them try.

* 400 points of ships. Zero points on Squadrons.

* Every ship that you bring gives you Squadron Points equal to 10x it's Squadron Value. (the multiplier could be tweaked. 12x? 8x?)

* Squadrons are not in any way tied to the ship that "bought" them.

If we did something like this, it would mean that we could play a proper capital ship game, and there would be no incentive whatever to NOT bring fighters. I know some of you above don't care for the idea, but I think it puts some decision-making power back in our hands, even as it takes some away. Sure, now it's effectively mandatory to run squadrons, but it already IS effectively mandatory to run squadrons. The nature of squadrons is that some is better than none; I can't imagine changing that without nerfing them to oblivion. The only solution, IMO, is to make it so taking squadrons doesn't require me to sacrifice ships or upgrades.

With this idea, I could take a three-ISD-Motti fleet, and still bring 120 points of fighters. (96 with an 8x, or 144 with a 12x) That lets me run an all-big-ships fleet, and still have some cover against the all-bomber fleet. I'll add an interceptor group to that, and take on all comers. Or I could bring Two VSD, and two Kittens, a nice selection of upgrades, and 100 points of fighters. That's respectable, I think.

I'm sure it's just my playstyle, but I hate to see naked ships, and lists obviously built around max fighters. I think something like this crazy idea might encourage decked-out ships, and still let squadrons have their fun.

6 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

"There's this version of X-Wing that lets you bring 300 points to the table - or 400 points total with a friend - called Epic. It's pretty cool. Have you heard of it? Now, Armada is about the big picture, so..."

So the answer is "Go play X-Wing" again.

I dislike X-Wing's core movement Mechanic and thus, don't play it.

8 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

"There's this version of X-Wing that lets you bring 300 points to the table - or 400 points total with a friend - called Epic. It's pretty cool. Have you heard of it? Now, Armada is about the big picture, so..."

Is the proper response to this "If you don't like to play with squads, don't bring them."

Just out of curiosity, who else enjoys squads the way they are now and believe they do not need to be changed? Because that's where I am.

The things surrounding squads should be changed however. Stacking BCC and Rieekan are on the top of the list, but some other upgrades that help kill squads would be helpful as well. A reliable way to kill Intel on BOTH sides would go a long way too. E-Wings are great with FC Snipes, but Imps still need a better way than Mauler/Saber/IG-88. You kill Intel and you kill the damage dealing source.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

So the answer is "Go play X-Wing" again.

I dislike X-Wing's core movement Mechanic and thus, don't play it.

Wow.

There are a lot of things to dislike about X-Wing, but the core mechanic is elegant and interesting. This is a sentiment I cannot understand in the slightest.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

Is the proper response to this "If you don't like to play with squads, don't bring them."

Now, me, I like squadrons. They have a solid place in ship-on-ship fights, and are obviously not an insignificant threat canonically.

But in Armada, it's a minigame, an aside that can help you win, but shouldn't be the MAIN way of winning.

3 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Now, me, I like squadrons. They have a solid place in ship-on-ship fights, and are obviously not an insignificant threat canonically.

But in Armada, it's a minigame, an aside that can help you win, but shouldn't be the MAIN way of winning.

I would say they are not a minigame. We have 4 packs of squads that have been released and numerous upgrades to support squads. It's fairly clear to me that FFG intended squads to have a place in the game. If you want to run 134 points of squads, you should be able to do so. If you want to run no squads, you should be able to do so, but you also need to be aware you're probably going to get wrecked by squads.

We don't need a nerf because people feel a major mechanic to the game is unappealing to them. What we need is more viable options when we want to run something. Ships should have a semi-decent way of dealing with squads and Flechette Torps is a good step in that direction. But ham-fisting a rule because "Squads are OP, plz nerf" is a great way to kill the diversity in the game.

I think people should be able to run whatever they want and have a real chance at winning. Not hoping your opponent rolls poorly and moves incorrectly so you get an advantage.

2 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

There are a lot of things to dislike about X-Wing, but the core mechanic is elegant and interesting. This is a sentiment I cannot understand in the slightest.

The core mechanic of hidden individual movement dial, the pre-planning of a specific maneuver, the initiative-on-pilot-skill, the link of special abilities to pilot skill and thus time frame to use...

Plus, it gives me flashbacks to some Fighter Theory courses at RAAF college in the AIRTC/RAAF-C where if you screwed up, the rest of the flight considered you 'dead' and didn't speak to you.

I dislike the randomness of the defensive measures, in the way that there is very choice other than "dodge"...

So yes, many parts of it I do not like...

Consequently, there are many parts of Armada that I do like, and in the fact I can only invest in one game, I invest in only one game. I don't begrudge anyone who wants to play X-Wing - almost all of my friends do - but I can't, and won't, because there are many parts of the core mechanics that I do not like.

Whereas with Armada, I do get the big picture, I get a mini-game of tactical movement with squadrons which are more like the Ordnance of other, now dead games, and the pleasure in knowing that no more than one-third of my forces are resigned to such things... They feel - to me - appropriately powered, and make me think about more things than just the blind maneuver of ships...

I enjoy the Shoot-then-Move mechanic of Armada

I enjoy the choices of defense tokens and their mitigation of Armada ("Defense Tokens are the Currency in which you purchase victory")...

So yes.

The single biggest insult you can say to someone is "If you don't like the way I play, F**k off and play a whole other game."

I responded to a statement where people are being driven because they feel they need to play a certain way - but that's still a concious decision they have made - to either stick it out or to give up and walk away.

I've been playing with maxium squadrons since day 1, basically.. I've endured many instances and times where I was laughed at for utilising squadrons, where I was pissed on and jeered at, and frankly downright insulted for my choice.

I'm still here, and I'm seeing the balance swing. I expect the balance to swing again as new things are put out.

Perhaps its my Games-design mentality, but I'm in Armada because its a Longer-Term game than many others. It forces thought and patience and consideration...

That's why I play. That's why I played. That is why I will continue to play.

I feel a little sad for PDR as its a card from a different time. When released in wave 1, squads were misunderstood with little support and I guss the devs nerfed it to make sure squads would stay around in their moment of weakness.

Maybe we do need a hard look at Cluster bombs. It's cost and discard is the same as the favored RBD. My arguement would be the player biased of the more visable and immediate affect of RBD.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

But ham-fisting a rule because "Squads are OP, plz nerf" is a great way to kill the diversity in the game.

Is a fine point but if the game is choking to death on squadrons, which there are a few of us that are making that point, especially after worlds, then perhaps a ham fisted Heimlich maneuver is what the game needs...

Now, is that a hard rule change as I and other have specified? Maybe not... but I do believe it needs to be be something heavier than... "oh look there's a new turret that adds an extra die against squads.... so maybe now you'll do 2 damage per shot...."

We need a squadron deterrent. A real one. One that doesn't involve me dumping 80-100 points into anti squad on a large ship build that really can't afford that investment and still maintain efficiency. I can tell you, the reason I don't want to play on vassal, or really in any event bigger than a store champ is because I know close to a 3rd of my fleet better be squads, one way or another, or I'll go no where.

1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

. I can tell you, the reason I don't want to play on vassal, or really in any event bigger than a store champ is because I know close to a 3rd of my fleet better be squads, one way or another, or I'll go no where.

Vassal by its accuracy inherently favours small ship squadron light builds.

3 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Vassal by its accuracy inherently favours small ship squadron light builds.

It's the small ship part there that does it for me, I got hit with an msu last year that still leaves my *** tingling but of the few games I played I experienced 3 full 134 squadron fleets an I had absolutely zero fun the entire time I played those, even when I invested 100 or more points int anti squad.

In all honesty, this was before I found the local group I'm in, and I was very seriously considering quitting then, I've learned to go with the punches since then, but I have nothing positive to say about the direction squadrons have taken since wave 2....

That's coming from a guy whose company requires people to field large numbers of squadrons to make any money.... lol

23 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Just out of curiosity, who else enjoys squads the way they are now and believe they do not need to be changed? Because that's where I am.

The things surrounding squads should be changed however. Stacking BCC and Rieekan are on the top of the list, but some other upgrades that help kill squads would be helpful as well. A reliable way to kill Intel on BOTH sides would go a long way too. E-Wings are great with FC Snipes, but Imps still need a better way than Mauler/Saber/IG-88. You kill Intel and you kill the damage dealing source.

Yo!

12 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The core mechanic of hidden individual movement dial, the pre-planning of a specific maneuver, the initiative-on-pilot-skill, the link of special abilities to pilot skill and thus time frame to use...

Plus, it gives me flashbacks to some Fighter Theory courses at RAAF college in the AIRTC/RAAF-C where if you screwed up, the rest of the flight considered you 'dead' and didn't speak to you.

I dislike the randomness of the defensive measures, in the way that there is very choice other than "dodge"...

So yes, many parts of it I do not like...

Consequently, there are many parts of Armada that I do like, and in the fact I can only invest in one game, I invest in only one game. I don't begrudge anyone who wants to play X-Wing - almost all of my friends do - but I can't, and won't, because there are many parts of the core mechanics that I do not like.

Whereas with Armada, I do get the big picture, I get a mini-game of tactical movement with squadrons which are more like the Ordnance of other, now dead games, and the pleasure in knowing that no more than one-third of my forces are resigned to such things... They feel - to me - appropriately powered, and make me think about more things than just the blind maneuver of ships...

I enjoy the Shoot-then-Move mechanic of Armada

I enjoy the choices of defense tokens and their mitigation of Armada ("Defense Tokens are the Currency in which you purchase victory")...

So yes.

The single biggest insult you can say to someone is "If you don't like the way I play, F**k off and play a whole other game."

I responded to a statement where people are being driven because they feel they need to play a certain way - but that's still a concious decision they have made - to either stick it out or to give up and walk away.

I've been playing with maxium squadrons since day 1, basically.. I've endured many instances and times where I was laughed at for utilising squadrons, where I was pissed on and jeered at, and frankly downright insulted for my choice.

I'm still here, and I'm seeing the balance swing. I expect the balance to swing again as new things are put out.

Perhaps its my Games-design mentality, but I'm in Armada because its a Longer-Term game than many others. It forces thought and patience and consideration...

That's why I play. That's why I played. That is why I will continue to play.

As someone else who has played with moderate to heavy squadrons from the beginning, yes to all of this.

5 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Is a fine point but if the game is choking to death on squadrons, which there are a few of us that are making that point, especially after worlds, then perhaps a ham fisted Heimlich maneuver is what the game needs...

I thought we were just making arguments about Rieekan Ace Holes being a bit OP, now it's all squadrons everywhere? No, no, no. I'm with @BiggsIRL and @Drasnighta about running heavy squads from the beginning. I'm all for having better anti-squad tech, but I don't think we need a massive squadron nerf.

I just looked, I was talking about Squadron builds back in 2015!

http://xwingtactics.blogspot.com/2015/07/BaFSquadron.html

8 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Is a fine point but if the game is choking to death on squadrons, which there are a few of us that are making that point, especially after worlds, then perhaps a ham fisted Heimlich maneuver is what the game needs...

Now, is that a hard rule change as I and other have specified? Maybe not... but I do believe it needs to be be something heavier than... "oh look there's a new turret that adds an extra die against squads.... so maybe now you'll do 2 damage per shot...."

We need a squadron deterrent. A real one. One that doesn't involve me dumping 80-100 points into anti squad on a large ship build that really can't afford that investment and still maintain efficiency. I can tell you, the reason I don't want to play on vassal, or really in any event bigger than a store champ is because I know close to a 3rd of my fleet better be squads, one way or another, or I'll go no where.

You don't need a squadron deterrent. You need to kill Intel in some fashion. Unless your opponent is running a mixed force of bombers and fighters, you can drop Shara+Tycho or Ciena+Valen into a ball of bombers.

The issue with looking at Worlds and going as hard as you can to nerf squads means you break the balance of the game going forward. Small steps will go a long way in making everyone happy. Natural evolution of the meta is better than cherry picking rules you think will make the game more enjoyable.

It's entirely possible to run 4 Tie/F and win a game against max squads. I know because I've done it multiple times. I honestly think there is too much hive-mind going on in the forums and people start to believe they can't play the game without X, or doing Y is "bad" because how can you counter Z? The hive-mind is what is ruining the game by stirring everyone into a frenzy of Pro-Squad vs Anti-Squad vs Pro-Flotilla vs Anti-Flotilla vs A vs B vs C.

Don't get me wrong, I love squads, and have been using them since ..... core! I'm growing more and more intolerant of overhead needed to manage what is typically brought by the majority of players, near 134 points of almost entirely different squads, on each side.

It's not overly painful to manage lots of similar squads, but now the game has lots of unique squads and most of them are worthy of competitive play. Each unique squads takes nearly as much table management as a ship, sometimes more, and going from ~16 game pieces to manage (3 ships and 5 squads per side) to 36 game pieces to manage (6 ships and 12 squads per side) is 2x the pain and often 2x the game time per game. We use to play 2-3 matches per night. Now, we're lucky if we complete 1 game without just calling it on turn 5. With the abundance of squads on each side, the game is simply too much of a pain to manage right now.