3 minutes ago, SoonerTed said:

Keep the Quasar in formation between two Vic-II's. Make the enemy pay for coming in to medium range to engage the Quasar.

This gets expensive fast. I was trying to build this. You wind up with three activations or lacking the squadrons to make the quasar worth it.

Or I guess I should say, I did. If you've got something here I'm all ears.

7 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

This gets expensive fast. I was trying to build this. You wind up with three activations or lacking the squadrons to make the quasar worth it.

Or I guess I should say, I did. If you've got something here I'm all ears.

I was messing around in the builder today and came up with the following list. It's rough, and needs a lot of tweaking. The Raider-II and the Dominator would flank the Quasar:

Quasar, Vic, and 2 Raiders
Author: SoonerTed

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 400/400

Commander: Moff Jerjerrod

Assault Objective: Close-Range Intel Scan
Defense Objective: Planetary Ion Cannon
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer (73 points)
- Dominator ( 12 points)
- Intel Officer ( 7 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- X17 Turbolasers ( 6 points)
- External Racks ( 3 points)
= 105 total ship cost

Raider-II Class Corvette (48 points)
- Impetuous ( 4 points)
- Agent Kallus ( 3 points)
- Disposable Capacitors ( 3 points)
- High-Capacity Ion Turbines ( 8 points)
= 66 total ship cost

[ flagship ] Quasar Fire I-class Cruiser-Carrier (54 points)
- Moff Jerjerrod ( 23 points)
- Stronghold ( 5 points)
- Wing Commander ( 6 points)
- Flight Controllers ( 6 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)
- Disposable Capacitors ( 3 points)
= 102 total ship cost

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Instigator ( 4 points)
- Minister Tua ( 2 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Quad Laser Turrets ( 5 points)
- Reinforced Blast Doors ( 5 points)
- Flechette Torpedoes ( 3 points)
= 67 total ship cost

1 Valen Rudor ( 13 points)
4 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 32 points)
1 Zertik Strom ( 15 points)

I prefer Squall over Stronghold. Extra movement beats obstruction, just like Navs are better than Repairs.

3 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Clearly we play differently because I have no issue driving GH into my opponent and forcing them to deal with the swarm of bombers I'm dragging with. I'm pretty sure other top tier players have done the same thing and won by doing that.

Why would you allow that to happen without Gallant Haven driving straight into a trap and be focused to death and their squadrons occupied with my squadrons, or just avoid it and kill everything else with your bombers at range?!?

To me this is just too predictable, easy to spot and avoid or capitalize on.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I prefer Squall over Stronghold. Extra movement beats obstruction, just like Navs are better than Repairs.

With the exception of JerJerod, I agree 100%. I rarely issue a Nav command to a medium or large ship with him. I use Comms Net to pass a token when I need to speed up or slow down.

19 minutes ago, SoonerTed said:

I was messing around in the builder today and came up with the following list. It's rough, and needs a lot of tweaking. The Raider-II and the Dominator would flank the Quasar:

Quasar, Vic, and 2 Raiders
Author: SoonerTed

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 400/400

Commander: Moff Jerjerrod

Assault Objective: Close-Range Intel Scan
Defense Objective: Planetary Ion Cannon
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer (73 points)
- Dominator ( 12 points)
- Intel Officer ( 7 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- X17 Turbolasers ( 6 points)
- External Racks ( 3 points)
= 105 total ship cost

Raider-II Class Corvette (48 points)
- Impetuous ( 4 points)
- Agent Kallus ( 3 points)
- Disposable Capacitors ( 3 points)
- High-Capacity Ion Turbines ( 8 points)
= 66 total ship cost

[ flagship ] Quasar Fire I-class Cruiser-Carrier (54 points)
- Moff Jerjerrod ( 23 points)
- Stronghold ( 5 points)
- Wing Commander ( 6 points)
- Flight Controllers ( 6 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)
- Disposable Capacitors ( 3 points)
= 102 total ship cost

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Instigator ( 4 points)
- Minister Tua ( 2 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Quad Laser Turrets ( 5 points)
- Reinforced Blast Doors ( 5 points)
- Flechette Torpedoes ( 3 points)
= 67 total ship cost

1 Valen Rudor ( 13 points)
4 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 32 points)
1 Zertik Strom ( 15 points)

Similar issues to what I've drawn up. I like the ships but dont love the objective suite or the fighter complement.

What happened to two VSDs?

I think if you are gonna go that heavy into antisquad with ships, and you are only brining so many squads, you might be better off flipping a raider out for a goz and upgrading the quasar to a 2 and bringing moar squads. I dunno.

12 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Similar issues to what I've drawn up. I like the ships but dont love the objective suite or the fighter complement.

What happened to two VSDs?

I think if you are gonna go that heavy into antisquad with ships, and you are only brining so many squads, you might be better off flipping a raider out for a goz and upgrading the quasar to a 2 and bringing moar squads. I dunno.

What happened to two VSDs is the same issue you had....cost. If I'm bringing two VSD's they are going to be VSD-I's, but then only the Dominator threatens at medium range.

I want to experiment with the Raider-II as a true support ship / flanker. Disposable capacitors make it interesting* to me. I also think the Raider-II can threaten ships better after it's done mopping up squads. The Quasar-I is really just a combat Goz in this build.

The objective suite is designed just to give the 1st player no good choices, rather than to exploit the strengths of this fleet. I don't like any of the Yellow objectives for this fleet, but I do like how many accuracy dice it will roll so Close-Range Intel Scan works well. Most blue objectives are garbage for this fleet so why not pick one 1st player will hate?

I also struggled with the fighter component...as I said, a work in progress.

*Interesting, but not necessarily effective.

45 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

Why would you allow that to happen without Gallant Haven driving straight into a trap and be focused to death and their squadrons occupied with my squadrons, or just avoid it and kill everything else with your bombers at range?!?

To me this is just too predictable, easy to spot and avoid or capitalize on.

Do you think Glads are fragile? Because I play a lot of Gladiators and they can be very difficult to kill. Now pair that with 100 points of squads screaming at you. Either you "avoid it" and I split your forces, or you try and engage me which is what I want. An AF is much tougher than Demo but there is the stigma that AF are fragile.

With initiative, GH can last/first you before you have the chance to react. With Intel, I can still kill your ships. Jan is a must with GH IMO, because damage reduction is just too good in this case. So you can kill GH, but that still leaves the bulk of the fleet that is designed to deal damage via squadrons. B-Wings, Y-Wings, Norra, X-Wings. Plus flotillas there that will pick up the slack if GH goes down.

If you still think that's not how to play GH, you can check the replays from Worlds or ask the players at Worlds who took the top places. An AF is strong enough to tank a few rounds of fire from everything below an Interdictor. If you're charging an AF into the front arc of an ISD or Lib, or side arc of an MC80, then you're asking to lose. But that's true for literally every other example.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

Do you think Glads are fragile? Because I play a lot of Gladiators and they can be very difficult to kill. Now pair that with 100 points of squads screaming at you. Either you "avoid it" and I split your forces, or you try and engage me which is what I want. An AF is much tougher than Demo but there is the stigma that AF are fragile.

With initiative, GH can last/first you before you have the chance to react. With Intel, I can still kill your ships. Jan is a must with GH IMO, because damage reduction is just too good in this case. So you can kill GH, but that still leaves the bulk of the fleet that is designed to deal damage via squadrons. B-Wings, Y-Wings, Norra, X-Wings. Plus flotillas there that will pick up the slack if GH goes down.

If you still think that's not how to play GH, you can check the replays from Worlds or ask the players at Worlds who took the top places. An AF is strong enough to tank a few rounds of fire from everything below an Interdictor. If you're charging an AF into the front arc of an ISD or Lib, or side arc of an MC80, then you're asking to lose. But that's true for literally every other example.

I understand that it might work well as a strategy in tournaments but in casual play you don't need to engage to win. I have done similar match up against Gallant Haven and gone second, I always go second it seems for some reason, like that challenge more. I just need enough points to win since its not a tournament which make for rather different strategies in regards to fleet composition and how you act during a game.

But you can just avoid it and go around it and then pincer the formation, done similar strategies before... I also think that deployment strategies are key to combat these types of fleets. They usually depend on having a tight formation and that is key to beating it in my experience. I'm satisfied to just win with a couple of point or just draw in worst case.

Do you think fleets and games would look the same in tournaments if they were just based on win/draw and losses?

5 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

I understand that it might work well as a strategy in tournaments but in casual play you don't need to engage to win. I have done similar match up against Gallant Haven and gone second, I always go second it seems for some reason, like that challenge more. I just need enough points to win since its not a tournament which make for rather different strategies in regards to fleet composition and how you act during a game.

But you can just avoid it and go around it and then pincer the formation, done similar strategies before... I also think that deployment strategies are key to combat these types of fleets. They usually depend on having a tight formation and that is key to beating it in my experience. I'm satisfied to just win with a couple of point or just draw in worst case.

Do you think fleets and games would look the same in tournaments if they were just based on win/draw and losses?

Well there is the issue. I practice to do well in tournaments. It looks like you do not. Regardless, when I play a casual fleet, usually a bunch of different concepts thrown together, I fully engage my fleet. I don't run away and I don't try to barely win. It's all or nothing because I want to know how each individual component works rather than how the entire fleet works. Then each component will find it's way into a fleet it synergizes well with or it's discarded.

And no, doing a simple win/lose instead of brackets of points would ruin the competitiveness of the game. But that is a different topic, one that has been brought up multiple times, and the consensus always ends with: Leave the scoring system alone, sure it sucks but it's the best of the worst.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Well there is the issue. I practice to do well in tournaments. It looks like you do not. Regardless, when I play a casual fleet, usually a bunch of different concepts thrown together, I fully engage my fleet. I don't run away and I don't try to barely win. It's all or nothing because I want to know how each individual component works rather than how the entire fleet works. Then each component will find it's way into a fleet it synergizes well with or it's discarded.

And no, doing a simple win/lose instead of brackets of points would ruin the competitiveness of the game. But that is a different topic, one that has been brought up multiple times, and the consensus always ends with: Leave the scoring system alone, sure it sucks but it's the best of the worst.

I was not suggesting that tournaments should be done differently... I rather look at what you do in a campaign where it is win or lose which is a bit more realistic.

Tournament settings are not that realistic from a thematic point since mission and objective are what counts in reality, scoring points and killing enemy ships is totally secondary . That is how I approach each game that I play so we are basically talking widely different styles to play...

In general we consider a win to be a margin of at least 20% of the total points cost, so 80p in a 400p game otherwise it is a draw. Usually we say that 10-20% is a marginal win but technically a draw. But we don't take that much notice on the points that much since we often end games long before turn six and all ships is destroyed since chasing a fleet for several turns is not fun or the result is a given. In campaigns people can just hyperspace out at any time they want... they have to weather at least one more turn though.

7 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

I was not suggesting that tournaments should be done differently... I rather look at what you do in a campaign where it is win or lose which is a bit more realistic.

Tournament settings are not that realistic from a thematic point since mission and objective are what counts in reality, scoring points and killing enemy ships is totally secondary . That is how I approach each game that I play so we are basically talking widely different styles to play...

Interesting.

The Scoring in Armada Tournaments is based around Scoring Points - which is Mission and Objective.

Generally the people who are going for nothing but kills and ignoring the objective end up in the middle of the pack.

I still feel it is thematic - since the very Core of Armada is "Attain what you need to, with Minimal losses."

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Interesting.

The Scoring in Armada Tournaments is based around Scoring Points - which is Mission and Objective.

Generally the people who are going for nothing but kills and ignoring the objective end up in the middle of the pack.

I still feel it is thematic - since the very Core of Armada is "Attain what you need to, with Minimal losses."

Yes.. that is how I play since I like to be second player. What I mean is that you are not counting the score from game to game in casual or campaign play where winning the battle and keeping your ships healthy is all that matters.

It actually is a difference between being able to mitigate a loss and maximize a win to actually require every game to be a win, that is what I'm saying.

17 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

I was not suggesting that tournaments should be done differently... I rather look at what you do in a campaign where it is win or lose which is a bit more realistic.

Tournament settings are not that realistic from a thematic point since mission and objective are what counts in reality, scoring points and killing enemy ships is totally secondary . That is how I approach each game that I play so we are basically talking widely different styles to play...

In general we consider a win to be a margin of at least 20% of the total points cost, so 80p in a 400p game otherwise it is a draw. Usually we say that 10-20% is a marginal win but technically a draw. But we don't take that much notice on the points that much since we often end games long before turn six and all ships is destroyed since chasing a fleet for several turns is not fun or the result is a given. In campaigns people can just hyperspace out at any time they want... they have to weather at least one more turn though.

I mean, it's a game with strict rules. I abide by those rules in order to maximize my win. I don't let arbitrary rules like theme restrict me in fleet building or tactics.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I mean, it's a game with strict rules. I abide by those rules in order to maximize my win. I don't let arbitrary rules like theme restrict me in fleet building or tactics.

There is a reason I never play in tournaments and that is mainly this reason... I feel the scoring mechanism is gamey and contrived and the campaign settings feel a bit more realistic to me. Not saying that it is wrong to play and prepare for tournaments. Campaigns can be as competitive, perhaps just a bit more laid back and forgiving of mistakes as such since we mainly play for fun though.

I would never play anything but Rebels versus Empire as one example, simply no fun for me. So... basically any talk of strategy that does not include Rebels versus Imperial are basically totally alien to me.

I realize that some of my experiences and strategies would not work as well in a tournament setting since I would rarely risk engagements that I feel will loose me a game... I rather draw than risk a loss and gamble a win. In a tournament you might get into the situation that you must gamble in order to claim more points or you will not win the overall tournament. This will color the way you approach a battle and how you build your fleets.

And you're welcome to that point of view, of course...

The only difficult part about it, is you have to be mindful it becomes very tricky to ratify your point of view when it comes to discussions with the, quote in quote "mainstream" who are planning prepping and playing in Tournaments.

I mean, I have the same problem of sorts.

I focus very heavily on building, maintaining, and serving the Calgary Meta group, effectively... The Sentry Box is building towards being the Primary focus of active, ongoing Armada competitive play. Myth games already runs a mostly-healthy monthly rotational tournament.

But because my focus is on Calgary, and on the way us Hothgarians Play (Always been fairly-hefty squadrons, and a focus on not being over-the-top competitive), we've never really seen the "worlds competitive issues" here - well, we did see that list crop up previously, but it was beaten down in a focus early on and the player moved on to other lists, effectively...

But I have to keep that in mind when I'm talking about Metas around the world. I'm not going to impress my way, my meta, as the way it should be - just the only thing I have to base my factors on.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

And you're welcome to that point of view, of course...

The only difficult part about it, is you have to be mindful it becomes very tricky to ratify your point of view when it comes to discussions with the, quote in quote "mainstream" who are planning prepping and playing in Tournaments.

I mean, I have the same problem of sorts.

I focus very heavily on building, maintaining, and serving the Calgary Meta group, effectively... The Sentry Box is building towards being the Primary focus of active, ongoing Armada competitive play. Myth games already runs a mostly-healthy monthly rotational tournament.

But because my focus is on Calgary, and on the way us Hothgarians Play (Always been fairly-hefty squadrons, and a focus on not being over-the-top competitive), we've never really seen the "worlds competitive issues" here - well, we did see that list crop up previously, but it was beaten down in a focus early on and the player moved on to other lists, effectively...

But I have to keep that in mind when I'm talking about Metas around the world. I'm not going to impress my way, my meta, as the way it should be - just the only thing I have to base my factors on.

I completely agree and I try to get that into some responses at times so people hopefully understand the differences.

There are a difference between tournament and casual play and they do require slightly different approaches to succeed repeatedly (if you are up against similar experienced players as you).

I do think that many people that read on the forum are casual players that do appreciate that point of view to the game.

The guy that won Worlds 2016 did a very good job at showcasing a typical pincer (or sort of) attack against Gallant Haven formation and the guy attacking was trying to rely too much on the synergy effect of his fleet, in that particular game at least.

14 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The only difficult part about it, is you have to be mindful it becomes very tricky to ratify your point of view when it comes to discussions with the, quote in quote "mainstream" who are planning prepping and playing in Tournaments.

The phrase is "quote unquote" and signals that what you are about to say is contained within two quotation marks. It's also a bit weird to use in text, due to its redundancy.

... You are correct. I did intend to say "quote unquote" due to the added emphasis of the redundancy providing additional impact.

Then completely mistyped. At least the keys are next to each other, I'll blame Fat-but-fast fingers

Ran stronghold last night, it was great.

It does need to be escorted by a combat ship though because you have to push it forward.

Red dice flak is hilarious.

16 hours ago, jorgen_cab said:

I was not suggesting that tournaments should be done differently... I rather look at what you do in a campaign where it is win or lose which is a bit more realistic.

Tournament settings are not that realistic from a thematic point since mission and objective are what counts in reality, scoring points and killing enemy ships is totally secondary . That is how I approach each game that I play so we are basically talking widely different styles to play...

In general we consider a win to be a margin of at least 20% of the total points cost, so 80p in a 400p game otherwise it is a draw. Usually we say that 10-20% is a marginal win but technically a draw. But we don't take that much notice on the points that much since we often end games long before turn six and all ships is destroyed since chasing a fleet for several turns is not fun or the result is a given. In campaigns people can just hyperspace out at any time they want... they have to weather at least one more turn though.

Realistic, really? I killed a fighter and run away during your base defense, I 'win' the battle, with no losses, you lost a fighter. I have now destroyed your base. Yep, realistic is the first thing that comes to mind.

Scenario 2, I decimate your fleet, sustaining heavy loss but stuff in decent shape (say 8-3). I destroy your base.

Scenario 2 is much more realistic. A campaign win in base settings made no sense at all.

52 minutes ago, Darthain said:

Realistic, really? I killed a fighter and run away during your base defense, I 'win' the battle, with no losses, you lost a fighter. I have now destroyed your base. Yep, realistic is the first thing that comes to mind.

Scenario 2, I decimate your fleet, sustaining heavy loss but stuff in decent shape (say 8-3). I destroy your base.

Scenario 2 is much more realistic. A campaign win in base settings made no sense at all.

If that is how you play it, then yes it can be a bit weird... our campaign does not really work like that though.

We basically divided up missions in two pieces... the attack gain one campaign point of it win the mission (get more mission points) and one point for having more than a 50% advantage in destroyed ships (squadrons not even counted in our campaign for victory purposes).

The defender gain one Campaign point if they manage to repel the attacker (win the mission) and not loose more than 50% ships.

We also have no turn limits to a battle and allow a side to hyperspace at any time.

We also modified all missions and added new ones to our campaign... basically very different than the original one. That is the power of casual play... more fun for everyone.

An obvious tactic with Stronghold is to run the Quasar close alongside an ISD gunship. The Quasar pushes the squadrons that defend the ISD while the ISD lays down the fire. If the opponent prioritizes shooting at the Quasar, that protects the ISD. If the opponent prioritizes the ISD, the Quasar will probably have opportunities to shoot at ships, while also commanding and protecting the squadrons to win the furball, and keep bombers off the ISD.

21 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

At least the keys are next to each other, I'll blame Fat-but-fast fingers

'..... to obtain a dialling wand, mash the keypad now.'

Just now, D503 said:

'..... to obtain a dialling wand, mash the keypad now.'

Today's speed test has me 95% at 72 WPM

I'm down 4 WPM from this time last week.

Got to get not just more sleep, but better sleep if I'm going to keep that edge.