Okay, (all fighters) follow me here. This is a weird logical pathway. Sometimes I see people complaining that certain things are underpowered, (such as recently an opinion, Sloane should completely wipe out defense tokens, instead of only spending them). I've also thought to myself in this game, due to how activations work, that killing off ships in literally one activation is one thing I like my ships to be able to do.

In the past, one was easily able to easily one shot any small ship completely with BCC mass squadrons, even in some cases taking out medium ships in one turn. Large ships could be completely downed in about 1.5 turns, leaving only one turn of retaliatory response, which could be mitigated by distance. This set up a Tier 1 power level requirement, which has been soft nerved coming into wave 6. Currently, Avenger BT averages slightly lower than being able to one shot even Gladiators and Nebulons form the front. 4 Cr90 Rambos, Demolisher, Ackbar or Sato MC30s, one shot from an Ackbar MC80 also represent probably about the 2/3s of a large ship's HP worth of firepower in one go.

However in terms of game health, what should happen? Should the game encourage firepower where you can easily wipe small ships in one shot and do crippling damage in one go? (Compounded with the importance of activation, where what activates when is the most critical issue of the game).

Or, should it be harder to kill ships? Should things be methodical, reward utter focus?

I will also mention that a medium contingent of squadrons typically don't die in one concentrated attack much. Yes 134 vs 50 will do that... but generally at higher than 50, they stick around for a while.

I'm of the opinion the best games actually force spread out ness. Where being able to manage multiple fronts and completing extraneous goals is the best gameplay. As opposed to rewarding only the best focus fire, as that eventually becomes a solved question (see Xwing and damage-per-minute based games).

So, if you fire at something, should it go "bloop" and go up in a ball of flame?

If it is a small ship, without protection, (looking at you MC30 Titles), yes. That is the flip side of the MSU list, and why 2 ISD lists are still viable. Thematically, double ISD lists should always be viable. Points wise, double ISD lists should be viable, (otherwise they are overcosted).

In short, if large ships are to viable, they need to be able to melt most small ships in one shot.

Now, if you are suggesting that all ships should be proportionally harder to kill, then the game needs to be longer. 6 turns won't do it if it takes 12 turns to kill a 6 activation MSU with 2 ISDs.

Well, thematically, a big emphasis on tempo and alpha striking seems a bit off. In the movies, these ships seem to sit in place and take their punishment for an eternity, and only very gradually do capital ships get worked down.

32 minutes ago, Nostromoid said:

Well, thematically, a big emphasis on tempo and alpha striking seems a bit off. In the movies, these ships seem to sit in place and take their punishment for an eternity, and only very gradually do capital ships get worked down.

Ok, but that brings me back to increase survivability, and the length of the game. Double all hull values, and play 12 turns, and this will be accomplished... But then the game takes too long. This is the balancing act FFG had to contend with.

Gonna go on a tangent here, but it relates to this topic.

I'm waiting for Legion to come out and I've been watching all the demo vids and trying to gather up as much rules as possible to understand the game. I've noticed a weird attack/defense "theme" between Legion and Armada. Legion is a defense based game. You are able to completely negate attacks, but your units have low HP. With cover reducing 1-2 damage and defense dices further reducing it, you can set up a very defensive force. To further compound the issue of never dealing damage, you have 3 sets of dice. White, which are awful with a 25% to hit IIRC. Black which has about a 62.5%. Red is the best with 87.5% to hit. So if you have white dice, the chances of you dealing any damage is extremely low. Vader has 6 red dice, so he will murder everything he touches, and he **** well should be doing that.

There are also abilities that can improve your defense. My point is, Legion is all about reducing damage. To counter this, there is a suppression system that has not really been covered, but it's supposed to simulate your soldiers taking cover and wanting to fall back if they get attacked multiple times per round. This helps get around never dealing damage.

In Armada, it's the opposite. Rarely do you never deal damage. Brace reduces it. Redirect moves it. Evade cancels 1 die or rerolls it. Contain doesn't matter. Scatter is the only token that can block all damage, but an Acc is able to allow damage through. Armada is all about dealing damage. The dice have a much higher chance to hit, and you throw a lot more of them. You can find this theme in throughout the upgrades as well. There is a tendency for attack dealing upgrades to be more powerful than defensive upgrades. XI7 vs AP being a great example. Of course ECM beats H9, but ECM works once whereas H9 works every attack, and there are upgrades that counter ECM (MS-1 Ion Cannon and Boarding Vader). It takes a lot of upgrades for defensive ships to be more powerful than offensive ones. The doom pickle is a an example of this. Same with an Interdictor. However, XI7 still puts the hurt on these ships despite their ability to survive multiple attacks. Also, defense tokens can only be spent twice, further allowing attacks to grow in power throughout the game.

So to answer your question Blail, I do think offense should be stronger than defense. The theme is already imbedded in the game. I think more points should be able to beat smaller amounts. An ISD should be killing ships much smaller than it. I don't think ISDs should be able to 2 shot equal ships though. MC80s should be wiping Glads, Raiders, Arqs and Gozantis. Vics should feel threatened by it, and ISDs should be able to stroll in and fight it 1v1.

Likewise, I think players who are cunning should be rewarded for trading up points. Yavaris+FCT+FCT+BCC+X squads should be able to kill ISDs because there are so many moving parts. It requires a lot of effort to get it off. And so far, this is reflected in the game.

Small ships should be ABLE to be popped in one shot. A stock ISD should be able to pop a stock CR90 (if it's in range to use all it's dice). The firepower of an ISD is impressive. However, if the CR90 is built correctly to survive battle, or has a good crew, or a wise commander, it should have the ability to survive a single salvo.

Heavies should be ABLE to slug it out with other heavies for some time however. These ships were built to take a beating and stick around.

The problem is to create good gameplay, you have to fudge things a bit. If ISDs could last 6 rounds under sustained fire...well, that wouldn't be very much fun for the Rebel player. And if half the available Rebel fleet could be consistently one shot killed at medium range...well, that wouldn't be very enjoyable either. I feel that the small ships might be a little too powerful and the larges might be a little too weak, but for gameplay, that works.

I'm okay with a vague sort of logic:

-Smalls can be one shot by mediums and larges

-Mediums can be one shot by larges

-larges can be one shot by nothing

Im not okay with undamaged large ships getting reliably destroyed in a single activation, especially not in a single shot. Part of why I asked if AvengerBT is bad game design.

Agree with the general sentiment that the game is fine as is, with small ships vulnerable to exploding under big fire and two big ships being able to fling damage at each other for a few turns. Mediums should explode in one shot only by a lucky shot from a big fire or sustained damage over multiple attacks. As long as the game avoids creating a situation where a big ship comes flying in and gets blasted or crippled in a single turn without being able to do anything. That doesn't feel right.

As long as the whole game (offense/defense/Small/medium/large/Squads etc) is about player choices then I'm cool with how the game is.

I do agree that there has to be a balancing act with only 6 rounds of play.

There are wargames that reward spread-out behavior - take Malifaux, where it's possible to win games without killing a single enemy model if the right set of objectives are flipped! - and several of the Objectives also do just that, however...

Theme.

The theme of Star Wars Armada is of two (small) armadas and their fighter escorts blowing nine kinds of **** out of each other. Of COURSE that theme will lend itself to schwerpunkt moments, where you need to concentrate your force at the key point.

That theme, of two armadas blowing nine kinds of **** out of each other, also means that they HAVE to be blowing said **** out of each other. Ships should, and must, die during the course of the game - bigger ships later, smaller ships sooner.

Going back to Battletech. One of the key problems with that game is that for the first 50% of the game, nothing happens . Damage is dealt to armor first, THEN internal structure - and nothing happens until the armor is breached. No weapons or systems destroyed, no overheating, no nothing. Thanks to the randomization of the hit locations and that there are EIGHT different hit locations, you couldn't concentrate fire on one part of a target hoping to kill it that way. Result? A game that was boring for a significant percentage of its playtime.

A game, first and foremost, should never be boring. A game where you can't kill each other's ships, even the little ones? Sounds pretty boring. A game where you have to balance the need to kill your opponent's ships with your swarm while still keeping the components of that swarm safe? Sounds much less boring.

Well, I don't want ships getting more explodey than they are now, but I'm not sure if I want them to get less explodey either.

I'd like to see alternate squad playstyles instead of being stuck with unstoppable-imperial-howling-horde or immovable-rebel-yavaris-bees.

I would say currently its in a pretty good place. This is more theoretical.

@baltanok, what do you mean in your second comment?

To get more concrete, I'm going to bring up the current boogeyman: MC80 Ackbar, buffered by some flotillas, somethings with another combat ship, sometimes not, and typically with a medium 70pt fighter contingent many times including Strategic.

Does anyone know exactly, how many shots does an MC80 take (assuming no Advanced Gunnery) to kill an ISD or another MC80?

Avenger BT right now seems to be in exactly the right place, averaging about 6-7 dmg, capable of ones hotting Neb side arcs or Gladiator side/backs , however you need extra modification to reliably hit 8 damage at a high consistency , where you can one shot Glad and Neb from any angle.

35 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I would say currently its in a pretty good place. This is more theoretical.

@baltanok, what do you mean in your second comment?

To get more concrete, I'm going to bring up the current boogeyman: MC80 Ackbar, buffered by some flotillas, somethings with another combat ship, sometimes not, and typically with a medium 70pt fighter contingent many times including Strategic.

Does anyone know exactly, how many shots does an MC80 take (assuming no Advanced Gunnery) to kill an ISD or another MC80?

Avenger BT right now seems to be in exactly the right place, averaging about 6-7 dmg, capable of ones hotting Neb side arcs or Gladiator side/backs , however you need extra modification to reliably hit 8 damage at a high consistency , where you can one shot Glad and Neb from any angle.

How is Ackbar MC80 the boogeyman and what wonderful meta do you play in that AvengerBT does 6-7 damage? Most AvengerBT I face are built to reliably dish out 9-10 Damage out of the front arc. Add in a ram and you are looking at 10-11 without double arcing. That's up in the range of killing all mediums reliably (remember no defense tokens) through most arcs. If you give it a double arc, it reliably kills anything but Motti ISD

Ackbar Defiance QBT MC80A can chuck 11 dice with a reroll. It averages 10.25 or so, but your opponent can brace. With Intel, you make it a 5 damage shot and then 10 damage shots after. So 3 shots to kill a non-Tagge ISD. Tagge can get it to 4 shots.

Defiance QBT double arcing sits at 6 dice out the front and 8 out the sides. Works out to 4 and 8 damage. With Intel, ISD dies in 3 turns. Tagge ISD still in 3 turns.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

I would say currently its in a pretty good place. This is more theoretical.

@baltanok, what do you mean in your second comment?

Right now, if you want squadrons to be one of your major threats, there are 2 very viable builds. Rebel side, it's a slow-moving, but durable b-wing cloud, generally with every point you have in squadron buffs.

Imperial-side, it's a fast alpha strike with Howl, dengar, and all the rest.

I think that having only those two options is bad. The rebel option is pretty much a pikeman with his Pike braced. Charge him and die, but he can't attack for beans. The imperial option is the Scottish Highlander, sky-clad with a claymore. Win or die, but no holding back. At least the imps can have serious warships with their squad wing.

I want imperial bombers + escorts. I want rogues supporting a torpedo boat swarm. I want rebel battle-carrier combined arms. I want options.

1 hour ago, Church14 said:

How is Ackbar MC80 the boogeyman and what wonderful meta do you play in that AvengerBT does 6-7 damage? Most AvengerBT I face are built to reliably dish out 9-10 Damage out of the front arc. Add in a ram and you are looking at 10-11 without double arcing. That's up in the range of killing all mediums reliably (remember no defense tokens) through most arcs. If you give it a double arc, it reliably kills anything but Motti ISD

Ackbar Defiance QBT MC80A can chuck 11 dice with a reroll. It averages 10.25 or so, but your opponent can brace. With Intel, you make it a 5 damage shot and then 10 damage shots after. So 3 shots to kill a non-Tagge ISD. Tagge can get it to 4 shots.

Defiance QBT double arcing sits at 6 dice out the front and 8 out the sides. Works out to 4 and 8 damage. With Intel, ISD dies in 3 turns. Tagge ISD still in 3 turns.

Oops, you've caught a nuance, though, I explained it more in my post:

Read: Avenger BT by itself averages 6-7 naked. It needs help (read: other upgrades) to get it up to 8+ with high consistency. But, you are right, I was thinking about my weird meta, which is 2 ISDs nearly naked with BT. I can see that post upgrades it can get up to about 10. Which would be enough to punch through a AF2 in one shot.

Can someone do the math on ISD front arc damage? + typically non-naked upgrades.

--

On the boogeyman comment, its a nod to the data recently that's stated that Ackbar MC80s show up in high numbers in current regionals/nationals. That's all. I try to be fair. I noticed squadrons placing high once, I see Ackbar Mc80 placing high often now. Its a good ship.