In the interest of constructive ideals, and not letting yet another thread degrade into a miasma of woe:

if If IF an Armada Second Edition came around - what would you want to see done differently? Be it a small revision to rules or a complete overhaul to the very mechanics. If you don't feel like a second edition is necessary, fine, but ask yourself: what would you change about the rules that exist to make the game better?

Let us assume that all ships currently made would receive conversions cards/dials/etc to this 2nd edition, so no having to buy all new models all over again. Let us also assume that finances and manufacturing woes would not be a factor: I'm talking a complete pie-in-the-sky ideal.

49 minutes ago, FoaS said:

In the interest of constructive ideals, and not letting yet another thread degrade into a miasma of woe:

if If IF an Armada Second Edition came around - what would you want to see done differently? Be it a small revision to rules or a complete overhaul to the very mechanics. If you don't feel like a second edition is necessary, fine, but ask yourself: what would you change about the rules that exist to make the game better?

Let us assume that all ships currently made would receive conversions cards/dials/etc to this 2nd edition, so no having to buy all new models all over again. Let us also assume that finances and manufacturing woes would not be a factor: I'm talking a complete pie-in-the-sky ideal.

Dude, i dont want to be a naysayer for you trying to start a constructive topic, but this is about to devolve into the same complaints about flotillas, rieekan, activation advantage, and every other thing under the sun. I appreciate you trying to start a new topic, but I worry it's going to go into the same complaints people are always talking about here.

21 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Dude, i dont want to be a naysayer for you trying to start a constructive topic, but this is about to devolve into the same complaints about flotillas, rieekan, activation advantage, and every other thing under the sun. I appreciate you trying to start a new topic, but I worry it's going to go into the same complaints people are always talking about here.

Probably. But in a vain hope that you're wrong (which I've only caught once myself, and on what most normal people would consider an esoteric topic), I'll throw in my big one: bigger design space. What do I mean? I mean a greater range of values, on everything. Armada has managed what few miniatures games can claim, which is that it's fairly contained from a numbers perspective. The highest hull a ship can claim (at the moment) is fourteen, and most numbers are much smaller. Dice are rarely thrown in numbers greater than five or six, with absolute maximums in the low teens. (Devastator plus Spinal plus CF is fourteen, can anything beat that in one salvo?) The flipside is that it is fairly difficult to actually differentiate new ships or squadrons from what came before, simply because the options are limited. Am I advocating for twenty hull ISDs where the CR90 stays at four? As much as I'd like that, no, that very quickly will verge into the area best left to computers and computer games (see Empire at War, Thrawn's Ascendancy, etc.). However, a somewhat wider range wouldn't have hurt it. Larger game pools (ex. kicking tournament fleets up to 1000 points, bear with me to the end of this sentence) allows for more granularity in points-costing. Does a CR90A really cost as much as a Raider-I? Probably, but the wider options means those numbers can start higher, allowing future releases more places to slot in. This goes double for fighters, which are hyper-constrained down at a series of tiny numbers that arguably don't well capture the true differences between a TIE Fighter and a T-65. Larger numbers for fighter health versus damage would also allow for more extended combat tactics at the squadron level and less reliant on the dice whims of fate. Slightly larger space, ex. 4x7, would also allow for more tactical maneuvering. I wouldn't mind if fighters could move at speed 1 or so while engaged (make 'em have to stay engaged or something like that), but now we're diving into truly miniscule things, so I'll wrap up with my last preference, more time in combat for ships while maneuvering. What I mean is that right now ships can jump from at point-blank range to completely beyond weapons range in one turn (usually it's the other direction, but whatever). I'd rather see ships spend more time maneuvering inside each other's weapons ranges before committing to close battle. (Increasing hull/shields by a larger factor than weapons output will help here.) As a seat-of-the-pants figure, extend every range bracket by a factor of .5, pushing the whole thing to about eighteen inches, and the fastest ship in the game, a CR90 with ET, can no longer leap from out of range to in your face, and the 25% slower Demolisher has to work even harder for its shenanigans.

Have I just designed a game with a very different character from the current iteration of Star Wars: Armada? Probably. It's more than likely shaped by some of my frustrations working on KDY. (Not KDY itself, but the work I'm doing there on Starfleet and the like.) And this all definitely comes back to the other sorts of games that I play. (For reference I think that EaW's maps and battle sizes are too limiting by a factor of three or four.) But, that is where I would go.

1 hour ago, FoaS said:

In the interest of constructive ideals, and not letting yet another thread degrade into a miasma of woe:

if If IF an Armada Second Edition came around - what would you want to see done differently? Be it a small revision to rules or a complete overhaul to the very mechanics. If you don't feel like a second edition is necessary, fine, but ask yourself: what would you change about the rules that exist to make the game better?

Let us assume that all ships currently made would receive conversions cards/dials/etc to this 2nd edition, so no having to buy all new models all over again. Let us also assume that finances and manufacturing woes would not be a factor: I'm talking a complete pie-in-the-sky ideal.

About 3 more years and 6-7 more waves, including Epic play ships c and rules set.

After that? Keep the same basic core rules tweaked to maintain near perfect game balance at an average skill level. Concentrate on providing more options to compete with the best cards instead of hitting everything good with a nerf bat.

2 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

About 3 more years and 6-7 more waves, including Epic play ships c and rules set.

After that? Keep the same basic core rules tweaked to maintain near perfect game balance at an average skill level. Concentrate on providing more options to compete with the best cards instead of hitting everything good with a nerf bat.

Thank you Cynan for reminding me that I'd like to see honest dreadnoughts, e.g. Executor, though Lord only knows how to build them in/afford them. More campaigns with more subtle iterations on existing things, including both ace squadrons and ship titles, would be excellent.

1 minute ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Probably. But in a vain hope that you're wrong (which I've only caught once myself, and on what most normal people would consider an esoteric topic), I'll throw in my big one: bigger design space. What do I mean? I mean a greater range of values, on everything. Armada has managed what few miniatures games can claim, which is that it's fairly contained from a numbers perspective. The highest hull a ship can claim (at the moment) is fourteen, and most numbers are much smaller. Dice are rarely thrown in numbers greater than five or six, with absolute maximums in the low teens. (Devastator plus Spinal plus CF is fourteen, can anything beat that in one salvo?) The flipside is that it is fairly difficult to actually differentiate new ships or squadrons from what came before, simply because the options are limited. Am I advocating for twenty hull ISDs where the CR90 stays at four? As much as I'd like that, no, that very quickly will verge into the area best left to computers and computer games (see Empire at War, Thrawn's Ascendancy, etc.). However, a somewhat wider range wouldn't have hurt it. Larger game pools (ex. kicking tournament fleets up to 1000 points, bear with me to the end of this sentence) allows for more granularity in points-costing. Does a CR90A really cost as much as a Raider-I? Probably, but the wider options means those numbers can start higher, allowing future releases more places to slot in. This goes double for fighters, which are hyper-constrained down at a series of tiny numbers that arguably don't well capture the true differences between a TIE Fighter and a T-65. Larger numbers for fighter health versus damage would also allow for more extended combat tactics at the squadron level and less reliant on the dice whims of fate. Slightly larger space, ex. 4x7, would also allow for more tactical maneuvering. I wouldn't mind if fighters could move at speed 1 or so while engaged (make 'em have to stay engaged or something like that), but now we're diving into truly miniscule things, so I'll wrap up with my last preference, more time in combat for ships while maneuvering. What I mean is that right now ships can jump from at point-blank range to completely beyond weapons range in one turn (usually it's the other direction, but whatever). I'd rather see ships spend more time maneuvering inside each other's weapons ranges before committing to close battle. (Increasing hull/shields by a larger factor than weapons output will help here.) As a seat-of-the-pants figure, extend every range bracket by a factor of .5, pushing the whole thing to about eighteen inches, and the fastest ship in the game, a CR90 with ET, can no longer leap from out of range to in your face, and the 25% Demolisher has to work even harder for its shenanigans.

Have I just designed a game with a very different character from the current iteration of Star Wars: Armada? Probably. It's more than likely shaped by some of my frustrations working on KDY. (Not KDY itself, but the work I'm doing there on Starfleet and the like.) And this all definitely comes back to the other sorts of games that I play. (For reference I think that EaW's maps and battle sizes are too limiting by a factor of three or four.) But, that is where I would go.

I'm not saying "don't reply here" just that i'm worried that before page 2 someone replying (not tongue-in-cheek to prove my point) is going to complain about one of those things. But to ACTUALLY discuss your topic (as i like some of your ideas!):

I do like the idea of a bigger point swath, as Warmachine did something similar when they went from Mark 2 to Mark 3, where 2 things that cost the same before had some alterations on them both. It seems to have worked? I don't play anymore, for various reasons. But it seems to have made things slightly better for them, yeah. I'm OK with the 4x7 thought, but i'd want to see it executed before signing onto it fully, haha.

And if i'm spitballing my own ideas here: make each ship be more basic but allow more modifications. Like, keep the arcs the same, but also offer a very stripped down version that you can build your own with. Ex: Cr90A costs 44 points. CR90B costs 39. Give me a CR90C that costs like 25 or 30 and has one blue dice in every arc and let me add in my own dice and decide how I want to outfit the arcs. Maybe it's an Ackbar one that I don't care about putting red dice in the face. Maybe it's Dodonna's actual Pride and i've somehow got 4 blue dice in each arc because i overloaded it like crazy. Is this too much for a basic game? Yes. But would it be fun designing my own full fleet from effectively the ground up? Oh, most definitely.

44 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I'm not saying "don't reply here" just that i'm worried that before page 2 someone replying (not tongue-in-cheek to prove my point) is going to complain about one of those things. But to ACTUALLY discuss your topic (as i like some of your ideas!):

I do like the idea of a bigger point swath, as Warmachine did something similar when they went from Mark 2 to Mark 3, where 2 things that cost the same before had some alterations on them both. It seems to have worked? I don't play anymore, for various reasons. But it seems to have made things slightly better for them, yeah. I'm OK with the 4x7 thought, but i'd want to see it executed before signing onto it fully, haha.

And if i'm spitballing my own ideas here: make each ship be more basic but allow more modifications. Like, keep the arcs the same, but also offer a very stripped down version that you can build your own with. Ex: Cr90A costs 44 points. CR90B costs 39. Give me a CR90C that costs like 25 or 30 and has one blue dice in every arc and let me add in my own dice and decide how I want to outfit the arcs. Maybe it's an Ackbar one that I don't care about putting red dice in the face. Maybe it's Dodonna's actual Pride and i've somehow got 4 blue dice in each arc because i overloaded it like crazy. Is this too much for a basic game? Yes. But would it be fun designing my own full fleet from effectively the ground up? Oh, most definitely.

I have no idea about your personal interests here, but the idea of building your own ships from scratch reminds me of a pretty decent game (provided it's up your alley, which is a gigantic proviso) Rule the Waves. You're the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) of a country at the turn of the 20th century, and you have to not only design and develop but deploy strategically and operationally command your entire navy in battle. Definitely not the prettiest game, but very very good if you like it.

All of my ideas need testing. The points swath one is the only one that can be retrofit without too much work. (Who am I kidding, you have to recost everything.) I'd like to be able to build my own ships, but I can only imagine the complexity of a formula that can handle anything a player throws at it.

4 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I have no idea about your personal interests here, but the idea of building your own ships from scratch reminds me of a pretty decent game (provided it's up your alley, which is a gigantic proviso) Rule the Waves. You're the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) of a country at the turn of the 20th century, and you have to not only design and develop but deploy strategically and operationally command your entire navy in battle. Definitely not the prettiest game, but very very good if you like it.

All of my ideas need testing. The points swath one is the only one that can be retrofit without too much work. (Who am I kidding, you have to recost everything.) I'd like to be able to build my own ships, but I can only imagine the complexity of a formula that can handle anything a player throws at it.

Oh yeah it'd be insane to try to implement a thing like that, but it's an interesting spitballing idea.

I love this game. I find it very challenging and very much not-broken. And I don't want a new addition anytime soon. I have spent a lot of money on this game and don't want to start over. But In 10 years or so if this game needs a new addition, I would like i to play faster. I just played in a three round trounament from 1:00 to 10:00, and none of my games got to round 5 before time was called. I don't know what to do to fix it, or even if this being a long slow game is a problem or just a personal preference thing.

Also I think being able to pass on activations if you have fewer ships that your opponent would have just made things work better from he beginning.

If the game had a "2.0" what I would suggest is to increase lethality vs squadrons and either increase general hull values for squadrons across the board to compensate or alternatively give more single defense tokens (like Bossk and IG-88). I believe that by doing this, large groups of squadrons will be a riskier investment that maintains their existing threat to capital ships while allowing ships to dedicate a meaningful mix of light fighter screen defense and existing point defense weaponry. Leaving the reduced power for attacking ships in return is fine, as we've seen numerous boosts to squadron anti-ship firepower.

The end result of this would be squadrons dying faster, which would speed up the game as much of the game slowdown is due to squadrons and the complexity of their activation sequence (each is basically treated as a miniature capital ship minus the Maneuver Tool). It would also make attacking ships with squadrons a less guaranteed victory by radically decreasing the chance of "flub rolls" in return fire.

I love Armada as it is now. If I could change some things it would be the followings:

I would make the scales closer to the movies. I really would like is CR90s would be tiny bits compared to ISDs.

I would change the movement rules somehow (don't have an all polished out idea yet) so you couldn't make a scissoring move simply by letting one of the parallel ships move first. I hate to say this bilu I think it woild be interesting to try the X-Wing/Star Trek Attack Wing approach with a separated movement phase.

And finally I would make flotillas either fighters or have their own class, like Support and make them less invincibe (no scatter!). There could be a ship phase a support phase and a squadron phase.

The only real change I would like are a separation of the movement and shooting phase to get rid of allot of the activation advantages when it comes to shooting.

I also think that there is a slight problem with accuracy and increasing number of the dice pool, I like for that to be looked over.

The main thing I'd want is an overhaul of the upgrades. A lot of the older ones need to be rebalanced like Dominator and Redemption. Imps commanders are not on par with Rebels either. Tarkin, Tagge, Konstantine.

I don't think there needs to be a fundamental change to the game with the exception of activations. I think first player should get first activation and the second player should get last activation. Change the rules to make that work. Maybe a way to make the games shorter too.

Otherwise I think the game is well balanced. An Epic mode would be cool with larger ships.

I think I would reconsider the role of ship sizes. right now they don't do much, and I think the size should affect the ramming effects and obstruction. An ISD trying to shoot an MC-80 accross a GR-75 loses as many dice as aCR90 trying to shoot a gozanti behind and ISD, and an arquittens on an Liberty does as much damage as a Spearheaded ISD on ramming.

I would love to implement an initiative system similar to how Runewars does their system. Your actions determine when you do your action in a round and the initiative swaps every round. Also the deployment system in Runewars is a nice concept. FFG has learned alot from X-wing and Armada and it shows in Runewars.

My high-level hopes, without rules details. Mostly revolving around making it much easier to manage on the table, play faster, and be easier to learn for new players:

• Much larger moving ranges
  • LESS MAP CLUTTERING!
  • Most ships barely traverse the map in a typical game.
  • Having more movement would allow for more positioning tactics and allow a ship deployed at the edge to do something in a battle.
  • It would be nice to have engagements in the before round 3.
    
• Much longer firing ranges.
  • LESS MAP CLUTTERING! Would GREATLY help with the clustering of ships and squads problem. Close range and Range 1 are waaaaay too short, causing lots of model bumps, making moving and measuring a real pain.
  • Quicker engagements, quicker matches
  • Close range and range 1 should be about 8", not 3". This would GREATLY reduce the close proximity cluttering we suffer from now.
  • Would help reduce squad overpowered
  • Did I mention less clustering??
    
• One range and maneuver tool, instead of 3
  • No need for 3 rulers. KISS.
  • Having different ranges for ships and squads adds nothing to the game but unnecessary calculations and ruler shuffling.
  • The One Tool To Rule Them All!
    
• Simplified attack calculation
  • Merge the super confusing multi-process range and LOS calculation into one simple and fast measurement:
    • Measure range and arc from dot to dot (or squad edge to dot)
    • If it crosses any other firing arc line you can't fire.
    • Use the range you just measured.
  • Done. 1 tool, quick, no BS 3-step confusing process that requires multiple arcs rules, multiple LOS rules, some other cross-over rules but not others, Bleh!
    
• Simplify squadron interactions
  • Greatly reduce the squad keyword interactions so it doesn't take a long time to figure out who is engaged, who is in range of what, what has heavy, what has intel, who has to be fired at with escort, who ignores escort, but not on a Friday....... bleh

17 minutes ago, Thraug said:

One range and maneuver tool, instead of 3

• No need for 3 rulers. KISS.
• Having different ranges for ships and squads adds nothing to the game but unnecessary calculations and ruler shuffling.
• The One Tool To Rule Them All!

How can you have one tool? The longer ranges is fine but I don't see how you combine movement and ranges together. The nav chart is the best mechanics in the game IMO so it needs its own tool.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

How can you have one tool? The longer ranges is fine but I don't see how you combine movement and ranges together. The nav chart is the best mechanics in the game IMO so it needs its own tool.

Nothing to do with movement tool, it is fine. Make the maneuver tool longer and either:

• To keep it close to what we have now: Put firing range bands on the back of maneuver tool (Short/Med/Long), and convert squad fire ranges of 1-5 to short/med/long.
• Or, have 4 firing ranges for both ships and squads, mapped to the movement ranges of the maneuver tool. Obviously this is a much bigger departure from what we currently have for firing ranges (short/med/long)

There are countless ways to tweak the game to only needing one tool for movement and firing ranges (ship & squad).

There Can Be Only One!

[ok, I'll stop with movie/book quotes now]

7 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Nothing to do with movement tool, it is fine. Make the maneuver tool longer and either:

• To keep it close to what we have now: Put firing range bands on the back of maneuver tool (Short/Med/Long), and convert squad fire ranges of 1-5 to short/med/long.
• Or, have 4 firing ranges for both ships and squads, mapped to the movement ranges of the maneuver tool. Obviously this is a much bigger departure from what we currently have for firing ranges (short/med/long)

There are countless ways to tweak the game to only needing one tool for movement and firing ranges (ship & squad).

There Can Be Only One!

[ok, I'll stop with movie/book quotes now]

But the maneuver tool can bend and what not. I find it more convenient to have multiple smaller tools instead of 1 huge one when I need to measure close or range 1. That way I don't need to figure out the correct angle to insert the tool to prevent knocking things around.

Even if the game became simpler in terms of ranges, there will always be those distinct ranges, and thus the want n need to have those exact measurements without needing the rest of the tool.

FLOTILLATORTILLAS.

ACTIVATION ADVANTAGE.

RIEKEN IS OP.

EVERYTHING ELSE UNDEAD SAID.

ARMADA IS DEAD.

5 minutes ago, ElSee said:

FLOTILLATORTILLAS.

ACTIVATION ADVANTAGE.

RIEKEN IS OP.

EVERYTHING ELSE UNDEAD SAID.

ARMADA IS DEAD.

Stale joke is stale.

Back on topic - the one that says on the first line: "In the interest of constructive ideals"...

I mentioned in another thread an idea for the pass mechanic:
You can have a ship pass, but to do so, you discard it's command dial and replace it with a token (which you can choose to bank or use when the ship actually activates later in the turn).

Basically this:

I'd either like to see them change squads into a simple token system:

"ships at range 1 of an un engaged bomber token suffer it's HP value in damage at the beginning of the x-phase"-kinda thing

Or I'd like them to give them the upgrades the merit the threat they issue.

-Squads have square bases similar to "x-wing"
-Bomber squads have a forward arc with LoS dot and rear weakpoint with LoS dot
-Bombers can be targeted in their weak point for 2x damage if they attacked a ship this round
-Squads come standard with ships based on squad values.
-Upgrades can change which type of squads come with each ship
-Upgrades can make certain squads into aces
-separate allowance for squads determined by total fleet squad value, to a max of 100 points


blah blah....

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Basically this:

I'd either like to see them change squads into a simple token system:

"ships at range 1 of an un engaged bomber token suffer it's HP value in damage at the beginning of the x-phase"-kinda thing

Or I'd like them to give them the upgrades the merit the threat they issue.

-Squads have square bases similar to "x-wing"
-Bomber squads have a forward arc with LoS dot and rear weakpoint with LoS dot
-Bombers can be targeted in their weak point for 2x damage if they attacked a ship this round
-Squads come standard with ships based on squad values.
-Upgrades can change which type of squads come with each ship
-Upgrades can make certain squads into aces
-separate allowance for squads determined by total fleet squad value, to a max of 100 points


blah blah....

Sounds a bit like Halo Wars, if I remember correctly.

Given the "for funsies" nature of the question, I'd basically tinker with some things:

• I'd 100% support @GiledPallaeon's recommendation for a larger points scale for the reasons he gave.
• I'd like to see commanders' point costs inverted into a points bonus because paying for your commander causes unnecessary problems fitting more expensive commanders into smaller fleets; it also creates the perception that your commander can be a "tax" on your fleet rather than an asset and the occasional request to be able to run a fleet without a commander at all to free up more points . For example, suppose Ozzel (using the current points system) provided an additional 30 points towards ships (only, not for squadrons) for your fleet and Tarkin provided 12. They're still both effectively the same "cost," but because they're adding to your fleet rather than subtracting from it, Tarkin feels less restrictive. Furthermore, it's a tiny nudge in favor of more ships versus squadrons. Just a bit, anyways.
  • Yes, this is basically how Warmachine's warcasters/warlocks work and it's one of the few things I still like about that game, so don't point out that I stole it; I know I stole it .
• Whatever minor nerf they're inevitably going to give flotillas should be carried over provided it's appropriate. I'm still a fan of @shmitty's suggestions of flotillas not counting against being tabled and not being able to be flagships.
• From a rules clarity perspective, I'm also a fan of @Drasnighta's recommendation of classifying the two hull zone attacks a ship can make during its activation as "salvos" rather than "attacks" because it would clarify what effects apply where exactly. As it stands, you can get confusion when "attack" can mean "an individual attack against one target" or "the entirety of your hull zone attack" with cards such as Slaved Turrets (which originally could be interpreted to mean your ship could make one attack against one squadron and then it was completely finished attacking for the turn). This isn't a mechanical change so much as a clarification change.
• When ships overlap, only the smaller size ship takes damage if the two are of differing sizes. A generally minor change to be sure, but it would address most of the belly-aching about the current overlapping rules. It also slightly buffs medium and large ships.
• Obviously some rebalancing for the "bad" upgrade cards like the infamous Point Defense Reroute.
• Non-destroyed ships that have taken 50% or more of their maximum hull in damage cards and non-destroyed squadrons that have taken 50% or more of their maximum hull in damage at the end of the game count as 50% of their victory points. Encourage players to be aggressive against each other! There's a time and a place to try to avoid an ISD altogether, of course, but not having your plastic spaceships fight because you for sure can't 100% destroy the other spaceship is sad. Crippled enemy ships are still of strategic benefit even if outright destroyed ones are obviously superior.
• Interactions between ships and squadrons are a constant source of complaints. The following are by far the most experimental suggestions (and thus the most likely to suck), but something along the lines of:
  • When a squadron attacks a ship, the ship may make a Counter attack using its anti-squadron armament. This may require some anti-squadron armament changes to get the balance correct but effectively when you make a bombing run on an enemy ship, you're exposing yourself to a lot more danger and the ship's laser/flak turrets aren't just going to ignore you.
  • Squadrons all gain the effects of Grit permanently (they aren't prevented from moving when engaged by only one enemy squadron) and Intel is removed altogether. Let's break this down a little bit:
    • Remember back in wave one when squadrons were awful because tying them up with just 1 or 2 enemy squadrons was too easy and they couldn't kill ships fast enough after they slapped their way through? Remember how excited we were about Intel squadrons? Notice how much we all groan about the necessity of Intel squadrons nowadays for heavier squadrons fleets? Wouldn't it just be better if the basic rules just made it so a squadron couldn't be prevented from moving by bare minimum squadron opposition but you could still rely on a limited combat air patrol to keep your opponent's bombers honest instead of it usually coming down to "how quickly can I kill the Intel squadron?"
      • This also limits the nonsense shenanigans of a single Rieekan zombie ace tying up numerous enemy squadrons as well.
    • Heavy might require some rewording so as to not cause confusion with the interaction with the Grit effect, as it presently does (where one X-Wing and one Y-Wing turn off Grit, for example).
    • The basic goal being "if you want to protect your ships, bring at least a few fighter squadrons and use them to engage and destroy enemy squadrons as a group rather than relying on silly tricks; similarly, if you want to deliver your bombers, interact with enemy fighters to clear a path rather than just leaning on a bubble that allows you to ignore them."
      • This isn't to say I'm super salty about Intel, just that it can create a kind of boring game state where the squadron mini-game is leaning fairly hard on the specific positioning of and opponent attempts to destroy the super-special squadrons that allow many of one player's squadrons to ignore the other player's, which is kind of uninteractive and not fun. I get why it was done, but maybe we could just patch up the basic rules so we don't need to bring HWK-290s or Jumpmasters in fleets running lots of bombers to overcome that mechanical problem built into the game?
    • Along the same line as the removal of Intel, I'd also like to see less "aura" effects from special squadrons (like Rhymer or Norra) to diminish the importance of precise squadron placement, which slows down games.
  • Relay squadrons must be within squadron command range of the ship Relaying through them. You can go ahead and use Boosted Comms and a Relay to command from downtown, but commanding from the other end of the table is silly.
  • All the above would assuredly require some points adjustments for squadrons overall to make them better fit their altered interactions with ships. Perhaps a small bump, perhaps not?

...and that's what comes to mind right now, anyways. I'm sure I'm horribly misguided and would kill Armada and someone will be by momentarily to tell me how wrong I am but it was a fun thought experiment, anyways ;).

I honestly just think first player having first activation and second player having last would go a long way to balancing the game, whether that is done via a pass rule or a shift in how initiative is determined (less activations means you win the bid). I agree with the relay being within squadron range as well. Other than that, there really isn't much that needs tweaking, IMO.