2 hours 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.

Right which again is pure fantasy (vader), lets leave the fantasy where it belongs, and design a proper game that is enjoyable for all.

1 hour ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

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.

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.

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

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.

They had artificial gravity? in that tiny space fighter? which only has thrusters firing in one direction on it? Accept that Starwars has very little to do with science, and a lot to do with magic and David and Goliath.

And a Star Destroyer has shields, shields powered by massive shield generators and reactors, no fighter/bomber is going to be able to overcome them, they are designed for Capital class ship weaponry.

The only way a fighter/bomber would be able to do anything to a Capital class ship like a Star Destroyer is because another Capital class ship had crippled it first. Because as I said, if a poxy snub fighter costing a pittance can take out your super duper expensive Battleship reliably and regularly, they would not ever be made nor used.

6 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

They had artificial gravity? in that tiny space fighter? which only has thrusters firing in one direction on it? Accept that Starwars has very little to do with science, and a lot to do with magic and David and Goliath.

And a Star Destroyer has shields, shields powered by massive shield generators and reactors, no fighter/bomber is going to be able to overcome them, they are designed for Capital class ship weaponry.

The only way a fighter/bomber would be able to do anything to a Capital class ship like a Star Destroyer is because another Capital class ship had crippled it first. Because as I said, if a poxy snub fighter costing a pittance can take out your super duper expensive Battleship reliably and regularly, they would not ever be made nor used.

Exactly this. Once you introduce shields to the equation, fighters make no sense. Heck, once they established that droids exist, humans being involved in space combat ceased to make sense...

1 minute ago, TheEasternKing said:

They had artificial gravity? in that tiny space fighter? which only has thrusters firing in one direction on it? Accept that Starwars has very little to do with science, and a lot to do with magic and David and Goliath.

And a Star Destroyer has shields, shields powered by massive shield generators and reactors, no fighter/bomber is going to be able to overcome them, they are designed for Capital class ship weaponry.

The only way a fighter/bomber would be able to do anything to a Capital class ship like a Star Destroyer is because another Capital class ship had crippled it first. Because as I said, if a poxy snub fighter costing a pittance can take out your super duper expensive Battleship reliably and regularly, they would not ever be made nor used.

Fighters where equipped with torpedoes designed to drain shield and torpedoes to blow big holes in capital ships. Small bombs can carry huge destructive capabilities... but it usually took many fighters and many attacks to bring down the shield of Star Destroyer. However, most scenes in the movies/series rarely show the whole picture and often just show the last blow.

This has nothing to do with the game and Star Wars operates under a completely different sets of laws of physics, one where magic more or less exists. It also is a fact that Star Wars is modeled by WWII combat and that is why it is the way it is. This has nothing to do with common sense.

The game are built on the Star Wars lore and that is why fighters will matter allot in the game, whether you like it or not...

In my opinion the game should models Star Wars theme and feeling before anything else, otherwise you might as well play with cardboard chits with numbers on them.

24 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

They had artificial gravity? in that tiny space fighter? which only has thrusters firing in one direction on it? Accept that Starwars has very little to do with science, and a lot to do with magic and David and Goliath.

And a Star Destroyer has shields, shields powered by massive shield generators and reactors, no fighter/bomber is going to be able to overcome them, they are designed for Capital class ship weaponry.

The only way a fighter/bomber would be able to do anything to a Capital class ship like a Star Destroyer is because another Capital class ship had crippled it first. Because as I said, if a poxy snub fighter costing a pittance can take out your super duper expensive Battleship reliably and regularly, they would not ever be made nor used.

Where are you getting this idea that star destroyers are battleship-equivalent in role? from EVERYTHING i read it sounds more like an admiral kuznetsov-class ship ( a carrier with 40-50 operational fighters and HUNDREDS of missiles to be used as a fighting ship too). They literaly have a huge army inside them. Their role is different. On the point of shields : they are defenses. That is, grossly inefficient and mostly there to buy time for the ship. Doesnt mean they(defenses) stand a chance to neutralize proton torpedoes!!! Why are you so adamant that defenses actualy downright stop damage/reduce it to zero? This hasnt been the case ever since the middle ages!

Just now, Valca said:

Exactly this. Once you introduce shields to the equation, fighters make no sense. Heck, once they established that droids exist, humans being involved in space combat ceased to make sense...

While I agree to some extent this to be true Star Wars is fantasy Sci-Fi and don't have to make sense. Also droids are more or less sentient so I think there is a reason why they are not used more within the republic than other sentient beings are. Not sure exactly what relations the republic have with sentient droids, though perhaps someone can explain that.

But the game is the game and it does only have to make sense from the lore or rules set in the Star Wars universe, not ours.

13 hours ago, ouzel said:

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.

Thats not how a counter works lol. You aren't forced to take the counter any more than you are forced to take what its countering. A meta is a meta specifically because some choices are more efficient than others in a probability space. In other words, the very existence of a hard counter devalues the efficiency of what it is hard countering. If a 5 point upgrade that nerfs relay existed even if you don't take it makes relay dependant fleets less attractive in the meta. If you are building an entire archetype around having fragile ships that don't ever want to be in combat range and this is propped up by them being able to still have 100% effectiveness via relay but you know there is a 5 point upgrade that can crumble this entire set up, you no longer have an "auto-win" fleet as is currently the case. For example, the existence of XI7s means you never see advanced projectors even though XI7 is not seen that often anymore...

13 hours ago, scipio83 said:

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.

Only kills 3-5 squadrons if you are stupid enough to attack in a ball. Remember cluster bombs are a counter. It's a deterrent. It says if you want to hit this ship you better not do it all clumped up and in range of your stupid relay! It just makes it more difficult to utilize a swarm of squadrons to destroy anything and everything and makes you think a little more about how you are going to keep everything in range of relay. It also acts to devalue massed squadrons in the meta. It also makes it easier for a modest squadron screen to potentially be able to strategically delay same squadron ball.

Yes... shields in Star Wars do not protect 100% against all damage until they are gone. Shields are obviously a complex thing and take skill to operate as to maximum effect. There can be cracks in shields, especially in large ships which can be used by a nearby fighter that detects it to get a torpedo past into that crack and hit the ship directly.

The weaker the shield get the more cracks and holes the shield get.

Just now, Hastatior said:

Only kills 3-5 squadrons if you are stupid enough to attack in a ball. Remember cluster bombs are a counter. It's a deterrent. It says if you want to hit this ship you better not do it all clumped up and in range of your stupid relay! It just makes it more difficult to utilize a swarm of squadrons to destroy anything and everything and makes you think a little more about how you are going to keep everything in range of relay. It also acts to devalue massed squadrons in the meta. It also makes it easier for a modest squadron screen to potentially be able to strategically delay same squadron ball.

Squadron balls are not very effective once you know how to deal with them. I think that the reason why they are so effective in some environments are because people rely too much on Aces thereby have too few squadrons to block and tie down such poor use of squadrons.

I have seen people use up 100-130p in like six-seven squadrons and move them in one big heap. That is easy to pin down with a more bare bones squadrons and some ship flak. Intel will not do the trick because they rarely have more than ONE Intel in such a ball.

I don't think we need area of effect weapons, we need to develop better squadron tactics in general.

19 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

Squadron balls are not very effective once you know how to deal with them. I think that the reason why they are so effective in some environments are because people rely too much on Aces thereby have too few squadrons to block and tie down such poor use of squadrons.

I have seen people use up 100-130p in like six-seven squadrons and move them in one big heap. That is easy to pin down with a more bare bones squadrons and some ship flak. Intel will not do the trick because they rarely have more than ONE Intel in such a ball.

I don't think we need area of effect weapons, we need to develop better squadron tactics in general.

Sweetheart, I know from squadron tactics.

Where this is useful is when you are facing one of those Reeikan relay death contingents. the squads need to be at range 1 to shoot you, they need to be distance 3 of a relay to continue getting commands from transports that are running away from everything, they like to be distance 3 of Toryn Farr and they like to be in range of Bomber command. Having to check off all those boxes and still be far enough apart from each other to make triggering an AOE counter not worth it is a much more interesting proposition. As for going toe to toe with squadrons against this set up, go ahead and try it. Enjoy wasting your time with zombie escorts tying YOU down. With their relay their squads are more responsive and they activate almost every squad every round with almost no balancing downside (3 transports plus yavaris all of whom can be sitting in a corner away from all your stuff), this is why aceholes vs aceholes is like watching paint dry in slow motion. Its like watching 2 pillows have a pillow fight. You will find it so effective to try and kill something only to have a fighter activated to your spot, shoot you, adar taloned, activated by yavaris next activation, shoot you twice and look at that you aren't tying anything up because you are dead and all you managed to do was delay 1 xwing ace 1 round. Good investment.

11 minutes ago, Hastatior said:

Sweetheart, I know from squadron tactics.

Where this is useful is when you are facing one of those Reeikan relay death contingents. the squads need to be at range 1 to shoot you, they need to be distance 3 of a relay to continue getting commands from transports that are running away from everything, they like to be distance 3 of Toryn Farr and they like to be in range of Bomber command. Having to check off all those boxes and still be far enough apart from each other to make triggering an AOE counter not worth it is a much more interesting proposition. As for going toe to toe with squadrons against this set up, go ahead and try it. Enjoy wasting your time with zombie escorts tying YOU down. With their relay their squads are more responsive and they activate almost every squad every round with almost no balancing downside (3 transports plus yavaris all of whom can be sitting in a corner away from all your stuff), this is why aceholes vs aceholes is like watching paint dry in slow motion. Its like watching 2 pillows have a pillow fight.

Yes... sure Reeikan can probably be a pain that way... since I only play campaign mode we don't have that problem since his particular skill are pretty crap... all your aces die and don't come back...

As for activating squadrons that I never had any problem with but others perhaps have, you kill most of those aces pretty fast anyway. I have tried this once and succeeded just to see how you would do it. If you attack that ball with 10 squadrons that throw 5-6 blue dice per squadron aces die like flies, they get to shoot back once maybe twice and that's it, at least it worked for me when I did it.

In our campaign that would be it, several of those aces are most likely gone if you do something as stupid as that...

In our campaign you are allowed to remove your aces from the board at any time and replace their squadron with a regular squadron so they don't die. If they go down with their squadron there is a 25% chance they die after the battle.

1 minute ago, jorgen_cab said:

since I only play campaign mode we don't have that problem since his particular skill are pretty crap... all your aces die and don't come back

I don't really espouse either side here, but I just want to point out that "well, it's fine when you use my set of house rules" isn't very useful in a discussion of overall game balance.

Proposing house rules is one thing, and there's definitely a place for them; but it seems to me that using them as justification to defend an opinion about the standard rule set is kind of just sidestepping the question.

Just wait until Leia hits...the cries will get unreal!

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

I don't really espouse either side here, but I just want to point out that "well, it's fine when you use my set of house rules" isn't very useful in a discussion of overall game balance.

Proposing house rules is one thing, and there's definitely a place for them; but it seems to me that using them as justification to defend an opinion about the standard rule set is kind of just sidestepping the question.

What... so you mean that the Corellian Campaign is a house rule... we just do it slightly differently?!?

Aces die as much in that campaign, actually much easier in that campaign than in ours.

Just now, jorgen_cab said:

What... so you mean that the Corellian Campaign is a house rule... we just do it slightly differently?!?

Aces die as much in that campaign, actually much easier in that campaign than in ours.

Your suggestion and experience involves CC which is played differently than tournaments. Translating strategies that work in CC, which also has a higher point cap, does not work so well in tournaments where you need to maximize your points instead of just having more points than your opponent.

You're talking past each other, not at each other.

2 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

What... so you mean that the Corellian Campaign is a house rule... we just do it slightly differently?!?

Aces die as much in that campaign, actually much easier in that campaign than in ours.

Most people aren't playing campaign games, they're playing casual one-off games or (less frequently) tournament games. Most people aren't playing at 600 points, either. You've said several times that's your standard.

It's okay to play the game however makes you happy, but it's difficult to apply information gained from experiences in an unusual format to the more frequently-used format.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Your suggestion and experience involves CC which is played differently than tournaments. Translating strategies that work in CC, which also has a higher point cap, does not work so well in tournaments where you need to maximize your points instead of just having more points than your opponent.

You're talking past each other, not at each other.

I agree...

But I have played against the Reeikan type zombie-squad once and it was annoying but not unbeatable.

2 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

What... so you mean that the Corellian Campaign is a house rule... we just do it slightly differently?!?

The rule you described, in which aces die immediately and permanently, is not found in any published official ruleset, so it is by definition a house rule.

No need to get defensive: you'll note I didn't make any value judgement whatsoever on your ruleset, and even conceded that there is a place for house rules in general. But if we're trying to have a discussion about a game, but we're not all talking about the same game, we're just talking in circles and getting nowhere.

53 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

The rule you described, in which aces die immediately and permanently, is not found in any published official ruleset, so it is by definition a house rule.

No need to get defensive: you'll note I didn't make any value judgement whatsoever on your ruleset, and even conceded that there is a place for house rules in general. But if we're trying to have a discussion about a game, but we're not all talking about the same game, we're just talking in circles and getting nowhere.

No... I agree... but I also doubt that Reeikan zombie lists are a problem in casual play because they would be house-ruled out pretty quick for being boring and repetitive. That is my experience from other games and casual play, cards getting banned for being OP and so forth, done.

In my opinion games like these always comes down to a few viable list in tournament games and in casual play you just adjust stuff so games become more balanced and fun. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a points based game balanced in the end, at least not as complex as system as Armada and similar games. Balance is an illusion in that sense.

In my opinion the best solution to the Reeikan problem in tournament environment is to ban him from tournament play until fixed rather than trying to find some contrived counter card to him, his game mechanic is rather gamey and abusive to say the least. Or FAQ his ability to not include aces and just extend it to ships, that would make him more bearable in my opinion.

On 6/10/2017 at 3:02 AM, Blail Blerg said:

This is the final wake up call. We are now at the point in this forum where it is a high point of contention whether Avenger, ISDs, Home One, and the MC75s EVEN HAVE GUNS OR THE CAPACITY TO HURT OTHER CAPITAL SHIPS WHATSOEVER.

I mean, we should just get rid of all ships and play 134 bombers with 266 flotillas. Git gud.

Wait, your mad because Two capital ships have a scatter? In your perfect world, @Blail Blerg what does Armada have in it that makes you happy? I mean, I'd like to make a "final wake up call" on hate posts about this game that, and this isn't much of a long shot, that a great majority of folks in this community actually like.

I'd like to make a "final wake up call" about owning Boardwalk and Park Place is Uber OP! I mean, WHO THE F DOES THAT!?!?! They should remove those properties and put more luxury tax spaces instead. And EVERYONE gets $200 for passing go? I mean, really?

5 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

They had artificial gravity? in that tiny space fighter? which only has thrusters firing in one direction on it? Accept that Starwars has very little to do with science, and a lot to do with magic and David and Goliath.

And a Star Destroyer has shields, shields powered by massive shield generators and reactors, no fighter/bomber is going to be able to overcome them, they are designed for Capital class ship weaponry.

The only way a fighter/bomber would be able to do anything to a Capital class ship like a Star Destroyer is because another Capital class ship had crippled it first. Because as I said, if a poxy snub fighter costing a pittance can take out your super duper expensive Battleship reliably and regularly, they would not ever be made nor used.

5 hours ago, Valca said:

Exactly this. Once you introduce shields to the equation, fighters make no sense. Heck, once they established that droids exist, humans being involved in space combat ceased to make sense...

Precisely my point. Star Wars has little to do with our science. They had artificial gravity in those tiny fighters, which moved in space as if they were in atmosphere. Shields could be pierced in part without being completely shut down, fighters are repeatedly shown to shut down shields. As I said, in the TV series Star Wars Rebels, Interceptors fire upon and destroy a GR-75, A TIE Advanced alone shot down and destroyed the Pelta Phoenix Home, and 6 Y-Wings lobbed 12 Ion Torpedoes into an ISD and caused serious damage. All of this is shown on screen, and all damage is caused solely by fighters, there being no capital ships in the area to do previous damage.

As such, please suspend disbelief at the mechanics of the game Star Wars: Armada. It is base on the 'science' of Star Wars, which is entirely unrelated to the science our Terra (Earth).

8 hours ago, Kikaze said:

Greece has only 90.000 personnel and [...] 28.000 shoulder-mounted antitank missiles, and and 2.000 antitank long range guided missiles.

And if the GREEK army was thus equipped, you can assume that properly equipped militaries like the US Armed Forces are even better.

///initiate Admiral Nelson protocol

7 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

They had artificial gravity? in that tiny space fighter? which only has thrusters firing in one direction on it? Accept that Starwars has very little to do with science, and a lot to do with magic and David and Goliath.

And a Star Destroyer has shields, shields powered by massive shield generators and reactors, no fighter/bomber is going to be able to overcome them, they are designed for Capital class ship weaponry.

The only way a fighter/bomber would be able to do anything to a Capital class ship like a Star Destroyer is because another Capital class ship had crippled it first. Because as I said, if a poxy snub fighter costing a pittance can take out your super duper expensive Battleship reliably and regularly, they would not ever be made nor used.

Easternking and blail blerg should have a vassal match over which one of them should inherit the Admiral Nielsen badge. The loser can blame it on Ben.

1 minute ago, ninclouse2000 said:

Easternking and blailberg should have a vassal match over which one of them should inherit the Admiral Nielsen badge. The loser can blame it on Ben.

Or is the loser the winner? Given their arguments that's the scenario that'd make sense.