More Anecdotal fun:

I took 4th in a 9 player and quite competitive store champs with an all-ship list. 2 Victory, 2 Raider, Demo and lifeboat using Jerry

I tabled 2 carrier fleets and only lost to the worlds list (flown by a guy that went to worlds with same list).

In one of those I bum-rushed a flotilla with demo on turn 2 and rolled an expanded launchers shot with an accuracy and 4 damage

Splat!

Anyways, the best and easiest to implement suggestion I've seen to fix a lot of this is to not let flotillas count towards not being tabled. Simple. If you face a reikaan aceholes list you actually stand a solid chance of killing Yavaris and Gallant haven before the Bomber span Jank takes you down. A big part of the problem facing those lists now is that thanks to relay the opponent can simply run his flotiallas to opposite corners and you can't both concentrate your firepower to take down the carriers and chase them down, and in the meantime they keep activating all the squads. Another fix is to make you spend all the squadron activations through 1 relay (i.e. you can't spread 2 points to 2 different relays) significantly reducing the efficiency of the relay and putting Yavaris in danger again (the balance with Yavaris ALWAYS used to be that yes it's powerfull but its also fragile, so if you want to push those squads you have to put this fragile Neb B in danger, now you can speed zero yavaris in a corner and get full value from its ability (which is BS)

And as has been said before, ship-based anti-squad needs to be a thing. Especially it needs to be a thing that doesn't require nerfing your fleet or paying out the nose in points to implement. An AS upgrade that is relatively cheap in a relatively available slot that adds either a lot of repeatable burst for single target focusing or an AOE effect to punish clumps.

5 hours ago, Hastatior said:

And as has been said before, ship-based anti-squad needs to be a thing. Especially it needs to be a thing that doesn't require nerfing your fleet or paying out the nose in points to implement. An AS upgrade that is relatively cheap in a relatively available slot that adds either a lot of repeatable burst for single target focusing or an AOE effect to punish clumps.

Ruthless strategists

Quad laser turrets

Cluster bombs

Raider 1

Neb B Escort Frigate

The tools already exist.

2 minutes ago, scipio83 said:

Ruthless strategists

Quad laser turrets

Cluster bombs

Raider 1

Neb B Escort Frigate

The tools already exist.

Not really. They exist but aren't effective enough against wave5 squadron synergy (I speak from a position of a person that used ship-based answers for squadron threat for some time).

And Ruthless Strategists is combined arms AS, not ship-based AS.

P.S. Btw, you forgot Point-Defence Reroute (troll face).

5 hours ago, Hastatior said:

I took 4th in a 9 player and quite competitive store champs with an all-ship list. 2 Victory, 2 Raider, Demo and lifeboat using Jerry

Nice!! My thought about a current all-ship list that can counter Rieekan is Motti ISD1, 5 Raiders and gozanti. Still need to try it though.

32 minutes ago, PT106 said:

Not really. They exist but aren't effective enough against wave5 squadron synergy (I speak from a position of a person that used ship-based answers for squadron threat for some time).

And Ruthless Strategists is combined arms AS, not ship-based AS.

P.S. Btw, you forgot Point-Defence Reroute (troll face).

Nice!! My thought about a current all-ship list that can counter Rieekan is Motti ISD1, 5 Raiders and gozanti. Still need to try it though.

That sounds like fun to fly. My Aceholes opponent did say that the only thing he fears is a tanky ISD rushing on all cylinders and popping a couple flots. Speed 3 all the way. With a bunch of Raiders to flank and Harry at high speed that sounds like a fun-as-heck list I would love to try. Anyways, I wanted to take an all ship list in a squad heavy meta and on top of that, build around the most maligned (wrongly) ship in the Imperial Arsenal. Everyone thinks VSD1s are crap until my spinal VSD 1 with a CF is unloading a double Arc into them at close range. So much fun!

3 minutes ago, Hastatior said:

My Aceholes opponent did say that the only thing he fears is a tanky ISD rushing on all cylinders and popping a couple flots.

Yes, it makes sense. That was my plan for a Worlds list (with Aceholes in mind) - supertanky ISD2 (Motti, RBD) supported by Projection Experts gladiator and flechette raiders. I did have minimal squads though (Ciena/Valen)

6 minutes ago, Hastatior said:

build around the most maligned (wrongly) ship in the Imperial Arsenal

Well, VSD1 can punch way above their weight if they're allowed to close in. I played 2 Vader VSD1s in a friendly game recently vs a double Liberty fleet and killed both liberties while losing only one VSD. Those 4 reds 4 blacks with reroll are very nasty.

My only issue ever with squads tends to be immersion. This is a universe where fighters are exceptionally good at killing things, why is not every capital ship throwing huge amounts of flak ala Battle Star Galactica? Big capital ships should largely be flak platforms with a few big guns strapped on somewhere.

23 minutes ago, draco193 said:

My only issue ever with squads tends to be immersion. This is a universe where fighters are exceptionally good at killing things, why is not every capital ship throwing huge amounts of flak ala Battle Star Galactica? Big capital ships should largely be flak platforms with a few big guns strapped on somewhere.

Most likely because it is difficult and more economical to use fighters of your own and have a modest amount of flak on the ships. They still have allot of flak on them it just is not effective enough in general.

Beautiful piece of satire, community. Beautiful.

1 hour ago, PT106 said:

Not really. They exist but aren't effective enough against wave5 squadron synergy (I speak from a position of a person that used ship-based answers for squadron threat for some time).

And Ruthless Strategists is combined arms AS, not ship-based AS.

I'm of the opinion that, rather than being insufficiently effective, they haven't been effectively *employed* (if at all). When was the last time you saw anyone use *any* of the above listed upgrades, in spite of the "ZOMG SQUADS OP" rhetoric that we keep seeing?

2 hours ago, scipio83 said:

I'm of the opinion that, rather than being insufficiently effective, they haven't been effectively *employed* (if at all). When was the last time you saw anyone use *any* of the above listed upgrades, in spite of the "ZOMG SQUADS OP" rhetoric that we keep seeing?

Because the above listed upgrades are over-costed low effectiveness garbage.

For 5 points discard Cluster bombs should roll that many dice at all squadrons at a 1 distance of the initial target or some such AOE. Think about how much ten numb costs above a standard B-wing with a AOE effect that you don't discard.

2 hours ago, scipio83 said:

I'm of the opinion that, rather than being insufficiently effective, they haven't been effectively *employed* (if at all). When was the last time you saw anyone use *any* of the above listed upgrades, in spite of the "ZOMG SQUADS OP" rhetoric that we keep seeing?

I tried all of them at some point. (Except maybe Escort Frigate, but I think that GSD2 is a good substitution).

need an up grade that lets a large Ships AA fire hit on crits and hits 10 points. Call it "coordinated fire control director"

20 points and also make it a black die.

I'm thinking even a modification that adds an AA die would be a massive help. Or one that works similar to cluster bombs but has AOE. They key is AOE and Counter threat. If you have a one shot squadron killy beam that stands a solid chance of crippling or killing a key squad (read: stupid, ill considered relay) it changes the game significantly.

Come to think of it. An offensive upgrade, "Jamming Transmitter" or something that stops any enemy squad in range 5 from relaying a lot of this jank gets nerfed.

1 minute ago, Hastatior said:

Come to think of it. An offensive upgrade, "Jamming Transmitter" or something that stops any enemy squad in range 5 from relaying a lot of this jank gets nerfed.

but it will have to cost as much as the attack your stopping. the fighters the relay craft and the fighter command cost from the ship. to be remotely fair.

19 minutes ago, Hastatior said:

Because the above listed upgrades are over-costed low effectiveness garbage.

For 5 points discard Cluster bombs should roll that many dice at all squadrons at a 1 distance of the initial target or some such AOE. Think about how much ten numb costs above a standard B-wing with a AOE effect that you don't discard.

Yes, because a 5-point upgrades that could conceivably kill 3-5 squadrons in a single go is reasonable.

It's ok to hate squadrons, but this is ridiculous.

We should get real here... you should ALWAYS take at least a token fighter screen even if you have a ship list that is geared towards defending itself against fighters. As the Imperial pick Howlrunner, one Interceptor and four fighters. That is only 60p and replace one Raider. First of it is more thematic to Star Wars and it will be way more effective no matter how you see it.

Secondly if you face a another fleet with no fighters and you spend 100p on anti-fighter upgrades and they didn't you will be at a disadvantage. Having fighters give you options to at least attack enemy ship with them, that is why squadrons are your best bet against enemy squadrons.

Just seeing an ISD with no fighter screen make my stomach turn...

Making the game in such a way you don't need fighters would be a bad and gamey approach. Star Wars have a huge focus on fighters being very important.

20 hours ago, jorgen_cab said:

Would not really be thematic, so hopefully that will never happen. I doubt that you would ever see that on anything but flotillas.

Thematic?

Everyone in Star Wars are terrified of Star Destroyers, all Rebellion troops, all the main characters, I mean absolutely, "We cannot get into a fight with them" mindset, and yet we have the strange dichotomy that apparently all you need is a couple of X-wings and Y-wings, and they are toast!

At no point in the Star Wars movies do we see Star fighters presented as credible threats to Star Destroyers, yet it is "quoted" by fanbois incessantly as justification.

There was with the advent of Carriers and Fighter planes, a realisation that Battleships were vulnerable to small attackers, not only that the difference in cost is astronomical, so we phased out Battleships, the Bismark for example was 251mtrs long, fighter bombers were I dunno 3-4mtrs long? the difference in cost, time and materials to build is astronomical. So it was simply inadvisable to build a Battleship when it could be sunk by something costing a fraction of it.

Enter StarWars again, we have super battle ships now, called Star Destroyers, that every single sentient we see in the movies is terrified of, but apparently is vulnerable to crappy Y-wings. Ships that are designed to engage in capital ship engagement, IE weapons of a grade above and beyond anything that can be mounted on a Fighter/Bomber that is no longer than 5mtrs in size. I mean we see in the Force Awakens, the squadrons CANNOT penetrate with any of the weapon systems they are armed with a bunker around a power core. This is exactly for once correct, armour systems designed for weapons of a different magnitude than ones capable of being mounted on squadrons, is for all intents and purposes immune to them weapons.

Just like 1 M16 Rifle, with a under barrel Grenade Launcher is completely and utterly useless when shooting at a Modern MBT, so would a the weapon systems of a fighter/bomber be totally useless for engaging a capital ship.

I mean think of the cost, think of the environment they operate in, they just would not build them, they would have basically followed our own tech path, massive ships like Star Destroyers would have been phased out for cheap carriers and fleets of squadrons.

13 hours ago, jorgen_cab said:

Most likely because it is difficult and more economical to use fighters of your own and have a modest amount of flak on the ships. They still have allot of flak on them it just is not effective enough in general.

More garbage, a Human is spectacularly poorly equipped for operating a fighter or bomber in space, droid operated flak turrets would destroy them with ease, we lack the processing capability to function properly in dog fights in space, or to properly process a 3 dimensional space, as an engagement zone, we also lack the biological parts needed to put up with the G's (G-force) being generated by moving erratically at such speeds in space, we would literally be pulped and smeared around the cockpit.

A droid that can program a hyperspace nav computer, will have little issue working out projected flight paths, and possible evasive maneuvers, especially when it can factor in the limit of said maneuvers due to biological constraints, and do so at an amazing speed.

Basically StarWars is space opera, and I've made my peace with that, but please stop trying to justify game mechanics for it, because very little in StarWars makes sense, most of it is impossible to justify other than a good movie.

The game is based on Star Wars and in Star Wars cannon big ships ARE vulnerable to small fighter crafts with short ranged torpedoes that do large amounts of damage to big things.

That is the case in the Movies and in ALL the source material, whether you like it or not...

The Rebel Alliance and the Empire operated on entirely different doctrines.

A star destroyer was not as much a space combat platform as it was a terror weapon. A very large part of a Star Destroyer was administrative space, quarters for people to live and space for operating as a planetary occupation and/or administration facility. A very large portion of the the interior and power of a Star Destroyer was not for direct space combat, that is why these behemoth of ships often had much less offensive "space to space" combat power per mass than a smaller ship with a more dedicated combat role. All star ships in the Star Wars universe also had limited energy for shields, engines and weapons and could never use everything at full capacity at the same time.

In order for a Star Destroyer to be covered in enough anti-star fighter weaponry to effectively repel any dedicated fighter attacks it would have been forced to be completely littered with guns all over, it had allot, but still not enough. The reason they carried star fighters was because they were better at covering not only the ship itself but also other ships, star fighters from several sources could work together and star-fighters was a relatively cheap investment and easier to replace and upgrade.

The Empire relied on their Star Destroyers to engage and destroy enemy cruisers and escort ships with their main turbo laser batteries while using their fighters mainly to protect them from small enemy crafts such as corvettes, gun ships and star fighters.

The Rebel alliance relied more on their fighters carrying the day which had more robust designs and they all carried some form of anti-ship weaponry. Rebel fighters could be launched from of-site bases and use their own hyper drive to propel them into a battle mission and start attacking immediately and surprise the enemy. Rebel capital ships were weaker and often refitted commercial vessels and often used as main carriers and bases for their fighters as their primary function. The Rebel alliance could not afford to loose capital ships on any regular basis.

So... yes... Imperial cruisers was meant to destroy enemy cruisers. The Rebels was rarely interested in such combats though and used their cruisers and escort to distance themselves from the enemy and have their fighters do the heavy lifting.

Armada is a game and if you just want to play a game that is fine... I want to use it as a simulator for Star Wars battles rather than a game with just numbers thank you very much... so no I don't think certain ideas of ships being able to run supreme alone in Star Wars should ever happen since that is not part of what Star Wars is, does not matter if it make sense or not... it is using its own Sci-Fi logic and should stay that way.

1 hour ago, TheEasternKing said:

Thematic?

Everyone in Star Wars are terrified of Star Destroyers, all Rebellion troops, all the main characters, I mean absolutely, "We cannot get into a fight with them" mindset, and yet we have the strange dichotomy that apparently all you need is a couple of X-wings and Y-wings, and they are toast!

At no point in the Star Wars movies do we see Star fighters presented as credible threats to Star Destroyers, yet it is "quoted" by fanbois incessantly as justification.

There was with the advent of Carriers and Fighter planes, a realisation that Battleships were vulnerable to small attackers, not only that the difference in cost is astronomical, so we phased out Battleships, the Bismark for example was 251mtrs long, fighter bombers were I dunno 3-4mtrs long? the difference in cost, time and materials to build is astronomical. So it was simply inadvisable to build a Battleship when it could be sunk by something costing a fraction of it.

Enter StarWars again, we have super battle ships now, called Star Destroyers, that every single sentient we see in the movies is terrified of, but apparently is vulnerable to crappy Y-wings. Ships that are designed to engage in capital ship engagement, IE weapons of a grade above and beyond anything that can be mounted on a Fighter/Bomber that is no longer than 5mtrs in size. I mean we see in the Force Awakens, the squadrons CANNOT penetrate with any of the weapon systems they are armed with a bunker around a power core. This is exactly for once correct, armour systems designed for weapons of a different magnitude than ones capable of being mounted on squadrons, is for all intents and purposes immune to them weapons.

Just like 1 M16 Rifle, with a under barrel Grenade Launcher is completely and utterly useless when shooting at a Modern MBT, so would a the weapon systems of a fighter/bomber be totally useless for engaging a capital ship.

I mean think of the cost, think of the environment they operate in, they just would not build them, they would have basically followed our own tech path, massive ships like Star Destroyers would have been phased out for cheap carriers and fleets of squadrons.

Didn't y wings completely disable a Star destroyer in rogue one? Your logic is false.

5 minutes ago, ninclouse2000 said:

Didn't y wings completely disable a Star destroyer in rogue one? Your logic is false.

To be fair both Star Destroyers had endured heavy bombardment from the Rebel fleet during the battle, so we can't attribute that success to the Y-Wings alone.

What happened in the film was that they detected a weak spot in the shield and manged to hit the ship with some form of Ion torpedoes to knock out its power grid. I would say it was a group effort...

2 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

Thematic?

Everyone in Star Wars are terrified of Star Destroyers, all Rebellion troops, all the main characters, I mean absolutely, "We cannot get into a fight with them" mindset, and yet we have the strange dichotomy that apparently all you need is a couple of X-wings and Y-wings, and they are toast!

At no point in the Star Wars movies do we see Star fighters presented as credible threats to Star Destroyers, yet it is "quoted" by fanbois incessantly as justification.

There was with the advent of Carriers and Fighter planes, a realisation that Battleships were vulnerable to small attackers, not only that the difference in cost is astronomical, so we phased out Battleships, the Bismark for example was 251mtrs long, fighter bombers were I dunno 3-4mtrs long? the difference in cost, time and materials to build is astronomical. So it was simply inadvisable to build a Battleship when it could be sunk by something costing a fraction of it.

Enter StarWars again, we have super battle ships now, called Star Destroyers, that every single sentient we see in the movies is terrified of, but apparently is vulnerable to crappy Y-wings. Ships that are designed to engage in capital ship engagement, IE weapons of a grade above and beyond anything that can be mounted on a Fighter/Bomber that is no longer than 5mtrs in size. I mean we see in the Force Awakens, the squadrons CANNOT penetrate with any of the weapon systems they are armed with a bunker around a power core. This is exactly for once correct, armour systems designed for weapons of a different magnitude than ones capable of being mounted on squadrons, is for all intents and purposes immune to them weapons.

Just like 1 M16 Rifle, with a under barrel Grenade Launcher is completely and utterly useless when shooting at a Modern MBT, so would a the weapon systems of a fighter/bomber be totally useless for engaging a capital ship.

I mean think of the cost, think of the environment they operate in, they just would not build them, they would have basically followed our own tech path, massive ships like Star Destroyers would have been phased out for cheap carriers and fleets of squadrons.

you would be right.... IF offense and defense were equal.

in reality, just as a bulletproof vest (even a IIIA level protection) means little against a 0.50 cal, and a 60-ton Main Battle Tank gets one-shot-killed by another tank's main gun( using APFSDS rounds ), defense is not very efficient against modern weaponry. it is the reason why "stand-of/beyond visual range" weaponry dictate the real-life "meta", as opposed to close engagements; because even if you invest in protection, you wont survive for long if you get outranged.

"designed for engagement with x/y/z thing" pretty much means "can save you from getting crippled against a mostly glancing shot". ever seen how easily a KORNET-E missile*cripples a main battle tank? even one with electric, active armour? the Y-wing's proton torpedoes are made for bombardment of capital ships. it is PROPER that they (dedicated bombers, designed to hurt capital ships) are a threat.

*shoulder-mounted weapon. just because you compared infantry weapons to tanks. modern infantry are packed to the brim with heavy weapons. greece has only 90.000 personnel and 20.000 anti-tank shoulder mounted weapons. for real.EDIT: sry, i was mistaken, 20.000 was when i was in service, now it is closer to 30.000. looked it up, 28.000 shouldermounted antitank missiles, and and 2.000 antitank long range guided missiles.

so dont think that "fighters have no TRUE anticapital ship weapons just as modern infantry cant hurt tanks much" cause that is incorrect. heck, darth vader's TIE advanced destroyed Phoenix Home if you wanna be lore-canon.

2 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

Enter StarWars again, we have super battle ships now, called Star Destroyers, that every single sentient we see in the movies is terrified of, but apparently is vulnerable to crappy Y-wings. Ships that are designed to engage in capital ship engagement, IE weapons of a grade above and beyond anything that can be mounted on a Fighter/Bomber that is no longer than 5mtrs in size. I mean we see in the Force Awakens, the squadrons CANNOT penetrate with any of the weapon systems they are armed with a bunker around a power core. This is exactly for once correct, armour systems designed for weapons of a different magnitude than ones capable of being mounted on squadrons, is for all intents and purposes immune to them weapons.

I feel this is represented in Armada. You're better off taking offensive upgrades - turbolasers, ion cannon, and ordnance upgrades - instead of defensive ones in nearly every case. And the only 2 examples I can think of where you can build a defensive ship is the Interdictor and MC80, simply because they are easy to support with Comms Net and quite difficult to kill with the right upgrades. Admonition is also quite good as a defensive ship with MM but withers under concentrated fire, where as the other 2 can take a beating.

You don't put ECM, Redundant Shields or Cluster Bombs on CR90s. You give them TRC and you're good to go. You take an ISD I because it's cheaper and you don't need ECM. You want the black dice or a super carrier.

XI7 beats AP.

H9 beats defense tokens.

Offense is the best defense because you kill your opponent faster. It's in the canon and in the game.

2 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

Enter StarWars again, we have super battle ships now, called Star Destroyers, that every single sentient we see in the movies is terrified of, but apparently is vulnerable to crappy Y-wings. Ships that are designed to engage in capital ship engagement, IE weapons of a grade above and beyond anything that can be mounted on a Fighter/Bomber that is no longer than 5mtrs in size. I mean we see in the Force Awakens, the squadrons CANNOT penetrate with any of the weapon systems they are armed with a bunker around a power core.

To be fair, the squadrons in TFA were anti-fighter, not even partially anti-ship like X-Wings. Also see below the comment about fighter anti-ship armament.

Though we repeatedly see fighter tear apart other ships in Star Wars Rebels. Vader's advanced rips open Pheonix Home, two interceptors practically incinerate a GR-75, Y-Wings rip open half an ISD wing, etc.

2 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

More garbage, a Human is spectacularly poorly equipped for operating a fighter or bomber in space, droid operated flak turrets would destroy them with ease, we lack the processing capability to function properly in dog fights in space, or to properly process a 3 dimensional space, as an engagement zone, we also lack the biological parts needed to put up with the G's (G-force) being generated by moving erratically at such speeds in space, we would literally be pulped and smeared around the cockpit.

A droid that can program a hyperspace nav computer, will have little issue working out projected flight paths, and possible evasive maneuvers, especially when it can factor in the limit of said maneuvers due to biological constraints, and do so at an amazing speed.

Basically StarWars is space opera, and I've made my peace with that, but please stop trying to justify game mechanics for it, because very little in StarWars makes sense, most of it is impossible to justify other than a good movie.

In Star Wars lore, the starfighters had artificial gravity, which prevented the pilots from feeling the forces of their acceleration. Meaning that the effect on their persons was as if they were siting stationary in a VR set, where they saw the world turn, but didn't actually.

1 hour ago, jorgen_cab said:

To be fair both Star Destroyers had endured heavy bombardment from the Rebel fleet during the battle, so we can't attribute that success to the Y-Wings alone.

What happened in the film was that they detected a weak spot in the shield and manged to hit the ship with some form of Ion torpedoes to knock out its power grid. I would say it was a group effort...

Yeah, but 6 Y-Wings ripped up half an ISD in a rebels season 3 episode. The one with the nebula.

32 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

you would be right.... IF offense and defense were equal.

in reality, just as a bulletproof vest (even a IIIA level protection) means little against a 0.50 cal, and a 60-ton Main Battle Tank gets one-shot-killed by another tank's main gun( using APFSDS rounds ), defense is not very efficient against modern weaponry. it is the reason why "stand-of/beyond visual range" weaponry dictate the real-life "meta", as opposed to close engagements; because even if you invest in protection, you wont survive for long if you get outranged.

"designed for engagement with x/y/z thing" pretty much means "can save you from getting crippled against a mostly glancing shot". ever seen how easily a KORNET-E missile*cripples a main battle tank? even one with electric, active armour? the Y-wing's proton torpedoes are made for bombardment of capital ships. it is PROPER that they (dedicated bombers, designed to hurt capital ships) are a threat.

*shoulder-mounted weapon. just because you compared infantry weapons to tanks. modern infantry are packed to the brim with heavy weapons. greece has only 90.000 personnel and 20.000 anti-tank shoulder mounted weapons. for real.EDIT: sry, i was mistaken, 20.000 was when i was in service, now it is closer to 30.000. looked it up, 28.000 shouldermounted antitank missiles, and and 2.000 antitank long range guided missiles.

so dont think that "fighters have no TRUE anticapital ship weapons just as modern infantry cant hurt tanks much" cause that is incorrect. heck, darth vader's TIE advanced destroyed Phoenix Home if you wanna be lore-canon.

Not to mention, that the Proton Torpedoes and Concussion missiles that the Starfighters carry and launch against ships and other squadrons are of the same grade as those used in capital ship combat, which could be added to your analogy by saying that each infantry man is carrying a Tank's main turret along with their M16 rifle.