On 28/10/2017 at 1:13 PM, Marinealver said:

It could be worse, trying to get small starfighters on the same scale as the massive star destroyers is a little tricky, but at least it isn't like below.

As for the hyperspace it would have been interesting but with the main focus on Capital ships in the initial development squadrons were sort of left to be one card units kind of like upgrades. It would be nice to have a Hyperspace trait which allows squadrons to deploy outside of a ship's deployment range, however it is a question on what squadrons. Sure mostly the rebels but that would be Awings and Bwings since X-wings and Y-wings (and E-wings) needed an astromech again with no squadron upgrades. Also Imperials really only have the TIE Advanced and maybe the TIE Phantom besides the shuttle. Well you have all the Rouge and Villians but it isn't like they need any mroe helpful traits.

Was just playing this game and I thought: where Tyber Zann and his Scum and Villany?

7 minutes ago, svelok said:

You sorta already have a bit of that, in the way squadrons have to deploy near a ship. It makes logical sense that ship was carrying them. (And Fighter Ambush to represent squadrons jumping in [rebels] or lying in wait [either]).

Obviously, that is stretched beyond logic when 10 stands of TIEs (each representing however many actual fighters) deploy off one Gozanti. But if you restrict that behavior, you probably cause really awful second-order effects to deployment in general, and make it much harder to play with ships that are deeply concerned about where they get put down relative to the enemy (so in particular, ships like the VSD or Liberty). You don't want to force people bring 4 flotillas just to ensure their VSD doesn't end up pointing the wrong direction and doing nothing all day, as that's no fun. There's way more list options if they can accomplish the same thing via 8 cheap TIEs instead.

I whole-heartedly endorse playing with such a home rule for thematic purposes! But, it would cause more harm than good if applied as a core game rule.

This amplifies the same thoughts, you're restricting deployment really hard. If I have to tell you which ship my B-Wings are in, and then set that ship down before deploying any squadrons, it becomes very easy for you to out-deploy me. Conversely, having them RLB-ed inside all my ships means you can't alpha strike ever, but being so spread out will make it hard to justify taking bombers in the first place (they can't focus down one ship, and you can't cover them with intel/escort efficiently).

Again - by all means, I imagine playing something like a custom CC campaign using this stuff as house rules, for a change of pace, would be a blast.

Yea I don't see it being implemented. But if it were in the rules when it was released, it would have created a different situation that all of us would have had to adapt to.

I think in general, it would actually balance deployment. Since everyone thinks 4 ships is the "average" ships in a fleet, you don't really lose too much by not deploying squads, except in a match where it's 3 vs 6. As it is, 5 ship bomber fleets can have 9 or 10 deployments, where the average is about 6 or 7 I think. So we already have a situation where deployments are strongly favored by max squad fleets, run 5-6 ships, play first or second player, and have the most synergy in the game. You're B-Wing fleet can just wait to deploy B-Wings last and now you've outdeployed me.

I hope you see the irony.

50 minutes ago, svelok said:

Again - by all means, I imagine playing something like a custom CC campaign using this stuff as house rules, for a change of pace, would be a blast.

We've already got a 2.5 page document for changes to the Corellian Conflict. I might be adding a few of these flavor ones into the rules packet.

Hmmmmm... one thing that bugs me about game flow is that flotillas can stop the movement of larger ships. I know it'd be impossible to lay rules out for cleanly, but I think medium and large ships should be able to displace flotillas as if they were squadrons.

A pickle or ISD should be able to just cruise on through a couple Gozantis instead of needing to slam on the brakes!

On 10/27/2017 at 2:58 PM, xanderf said:

Okay, seriously, where ARE all the fighters coming from?

1. Only really a problem for the Empire, as most Rebel fighters have hyperdrives, but seriously - so many squadrons of TIE Interceptors flying with a handful of Arquitens? HOW?! And especially for adapting the game for campaign rules - *oof*, it'd be nice to have had some kind of stat on the ship cards for some of the 'fluff' elements. (Number of squadrons embarked, for example.)

You must be playing with a vastly different group than I do, even when we had a guy only bring TiE Fighters he still could have carried them all on one of the two ships that he brought to the battle, and I think that was the largest amount of fighters I have seen any single player ever field.

2 hours ago, duck_bird said:

Hmmmmm... one thing that bugs me about game flow is that flotillas can stop the movement of larger ships. I know it'd be impossible to lay rules out for cleanly, but I think medium and large ships should be able to displace flotillas as if they were squadrons.

A pickle or ISD should be able to just cruise on through a couple Gozantis instead of needing to slam on the brakes!

Noooooo! Keep Demolisher away from meeee

On 10/27/2017 at 4:58 PM, xanderf said:

1. Teleporting ships.
   SUPER annoying that the maneuver template doesn't matter for obstacles or collisions. It really takes a lot of the skill of maneuvering a fleet out of the picture, as you can just weave it back and forth, over or under things, until you end up in the perfect spot. Doubly-annoying? Can't take a good shot at that Demolisher, as it's obstructed behind two bumper-to-bumper Raiders, and then when it activates it teleports over to your side of the Raiders and drops a salvo into you. How?! Game mechanic -> theme fail ++.
   Seriously, would it have been so hard to just have ships step down the maneuver template to each notch, and any collision along the way is the point of collision they have to back away from?

So this is an interesting point of conflict with the game. It definitely can be a major Negative Playing Experience, wether we’re talking about inexperienced players having a tough time maneuvering, or really experienced players forcing you into a bad spot and getting free ram damage.

Like some have already pointed out, this is a game in space, not on the ocean, so the maneuvering tool’s path really shouldn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. But the overlap mechanics and physical limitations of the game wind up being half-space/half-ocean.

If you’re looking for a house-rule, use “declared depth.” Assign depth levels to obstacles and ships when they are placed. Ie, the first debris field is placed at depth “1”, the station at depth “3”, and so on. While maneuvering, ships can change depth by 1 for each joint they move along the maneuver tool. While maneuvering, ships only suffer efffects of overlapping if they overlap an object at an equal or adjacent depth to the depth of the maneuver tool at that point (you’d need to check the ship’s position at each joint).

Obviously, this would be complicated, needs more refinement and definition, players would have trouble learning the house rule, but it gets at the issue you brought up, and I don’t think it would be harder to learn than the game itself was.

6 hours ago, Parkdaddy said:

If you’re looking for a house-rule, use “declared depth.” Assign depth levels to obstacles and ships when they are placed. Ie, the first debris field is placed at depth “1”, the station at depth “3”, and so on. While maneuvering, ships can change depth by 1 for each joint they move along the maneuver tool. While maneuvering, ships only suffer efffects of overlapping if they overlap an object at an equal or adjacent depth to the depth of the maneuver tool at that point (you’d need to check the ship’s position at each joint).

This is interesting and I’d love to see some kind of acknowledgment of depth in the game, but you’ve also revived the issue the collision rule resolves, which is that two ships physically can’t occupy the same spot on the table. To pick an extreme example, I fly my two isds forward, one at depth 0, the other at depth 3, and then I cross them so the first is located directly below the second. How do I mark this situation on the table?

58 minutes ago, OlaphOfTheNorth said:

This is interesting and I’d love to see some kind of acknowledgment of depth in the game, but you’ve also revived the issue the collision rule resolves, which is that two ships physically can’t occupy the same spot on the table. To pick an extreme example, I fly my two isds forward, one at depth 0, the other at depth 3, and then I cross them so the first is located directly below the second. How do I mark this situation on the table?

Stilts

23 hours ago, draco193 said:

We actually house ruled in our CC campaign that if you hyperspaced out if you no longer had enough squad value to pick up fighters they were destroyed if they canonically didn't have hyper drives.

Why'd you have to go and hate on the Empire?

22 hours ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

We've already got a 2.5 page document for changes to the Corellian Conflict. I might be adding a few of these flavor ones into the rules packet.

Care to share?

19 hours ago, duck_bird said:

Hmmmmm... one thing that bugs me about game flow is that flotillas can stop the movement of larger ships. I know it'd be impossible to lay rules out for cleanly, but I think medium and large ships should be able to displace flotillas as if they were squadrons.

A pickle or ISD should be able to just cruise on through a couple Gozantis instead of needing to slam on the brakes!

Oh, yes, that would be Devastating.... Devastatingly awesome!!

Regarding Xander's point about ships moving along a path, rather than teleporting. I agree with him. Regarding the 3D-ness of space, I think that's already something that just by the wayside. Having ships leapfrog doesn't make me feel like it's a 3D game. I think the extra challenge probably makes the game more fun.

Yo, Xander, next time we play - let's do this!

2 hours ago, OlaphOfTheNorth said:

This is interesting and I’d love to see some kind of acknowledgment of depth in the game, but you’ve also revived the issue the collision rule resolves, which is that two ships physically can’t occupy the same spot on the table. To pick an extreme example, I fly my two isds forward, one at depth 0, the other at depth 3, and then I cross them so the first is located directly below the second. How do I mark this situation on the table?

I believe that’s the reason FFG came up with the system they did. It’s hard.

My immediate thought, trying to be helpful, is to use the maneuver tool to keep track of where ships would be. Ie, after a ship makes an overlapping maneuver, you place the ship the same as you would in a collision and both ships stay on the table. When you go to measure firing arcs/maneuvers/etc, you Mark and remove the blocking ship and move the activating ship to the spot it should have been using the maneuver tool. Time consuming, but accurate.

For keeping track of depth, a numbered token or die can easily be assigned to each ship/obstacle. You can set a maximum allowable range of depths (6 would correspond nicely with a d6).

I think however, that only the most dedicated of realists would get worthwhile value from a system as tedious as this.

2 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Why'd you have to go and hate on the Empire?

We liked the thematic element. And we Imperials had the Interdictor to help keep the rebels from running, so it was a nice trade off.

On 10/28/2017 at 9:45 AM, xero989 said:

1: does not bother me as someone else has said is explained we are simulating a 3d plane with a 2d one

2: I think if this idea was implamented the penalty would have to be high otherwise it would make boomer fleets overpowered, I really think the way the game sits right now is best for the health of the game, you have the ability to disingage but need the tools to do it either upgrades, Intel, phantoms, or by killing the fighters your engaged with. And adding a disengage mechanic would also sleep in the learning curve for new players.

1: If the ship is above/below another ship, so that it can maneuver through it without issue...then why was the shot obstructed? What doesn't make sense is that positioning of a ship can block some/all of a shot, but then have no impact on maneuvering at all. And it seems a fairly simple thing to just check each pivot on the ruler for collisions - what does this really break, from a gameplay perspective? It certainly makes fleet positioning and maneuvering a higher-skill thing, but that's a good thing, in my book, anyway.

2: That's why I tend to prefer the automatic-step loss vs the 'free attack'. Losing half health (rounded up), minimum 1, means a TIE Fighter or Interceptor squadron can do it exactly once without disintegrating. Even tanky Y-Wings are only going to be able to pull it off twice. It's not a capability anyone is going to use often, but having it as an option provides a common reference point to most other wargames that make use of a similar mechanic, as well as working thematically, and also giving the commanders some more decisions to make.

3 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Care to share?

I'm more than happy to. It's still a working document, but I'll start a thread with all the rules/changes we're going with for this Corellian Conflict campaign.

On 10/30/2017 at 2:15 PM, duck_bird said:

Hmmmmm... one thing that bugs me about game flow is that flotillas can stop the movement of larger ships. I know it'd be impossible to lay rules out for cleanly, but I think medium and large ships should be able to displace flotillas as if they were squadrons.

A pickle or ISD should be able to just cruise on through a couple Gozantis instead of needing to slam on the brakes!

Gets to be unnecessarily complicated, but at the very least, it seems like there should be different damage applied depending on the colliding ship sizes. For example:

Large x Large - deal both a face down damage card

Large x Medium - deal both a face down damage card

Large x Small - deal a face down damage card to the small ship, and deal one damage to the large ship (can be applied to shields if any remain)

Large x Flotilla - no damage to the large, deal one face up to the flotilla

2 hours ago, jp82729 said:

Gets to be unnecessarily complicated, but at the very least, it seems like there should be different damage applied depending on the colliding ship sizes. For example:

Large x Large - deal both a face down damage card

Large x Medium - deal both a face down damage card

Large x Small - deal a face down damage card to the small ship, and deal one damage to the large ship (can be applied to shields if any remain)

Large x Flotilla - no damage to the large, deal one face up to the flotilla

Oh for sure. There's no easy way to implement it rules-wise. But it seems like it would make so much sense! Like at the end of Rogue One where Vader's ISD just warps in and shouts "MOVE, *****, get out the way!" to that poor little GR75.

It just feels silly when a huge ship needs to come to a screeching halt to avoid a collision with a tiny baby ship.

While I would have liked Armada to be multi level, (really dislike the Ram mechanics, because they are supposed to be in space not on the ocean surface) it was discussed previously in the ramming thread (much prefer ship displacement with Ramming only being able due to a Command and specific command not part of a Navigate action.) You're going to have the headache of Fire arcs, they are already a pita to deal with once you get to the main combat turns of the game, having ships a multi levels works just fine if they are near each other, when they are on top of each other, or nearly on top of each other, good luck getting your tool in to check arcs.

And while ships are level, you can have a left and right fire arc, take an ISD for example, while its target is on the same level as it, its own superstructure prevents its weapons firing across its hull, you dip the front of that ISD so it is negative yaw to its target and all of a sudden every gun on the upper hull, both sides can have clear LOS to the target, so if you are above an ISD, it can shoot with front/right/left at once, which is the entire point of the dagger hull shape. The flip side being, if you're under and ISD, it is going to struggle to shoot you with anything, other than a few weapon systems mounted on the lower deck hull edge.

So how do we realistically handle Fire Arcs in a multi level game? Not going to be simple thats for sure.

Armada takes a lot of complicated things and simplifies them for speed of game play, does game depth suffer for that simplification? yes, absolutely yes. Does that simplification make Armada a bad gaming experience? No, no game is perfect, but I think Armada balances a lot things well and is still enjoyable to play.

5 hours ago, jp82729 said:

Gets to be unnecessarily complicated, but at the very least, it seems like there should be different damage applied depending on the colliding ship sizes. For example:

Large x Large - deal both a face down damage card

Large x Medium - deal both a face down damage card

Large x Small - deal a face down damage card to the small ship, and deal one damage to the large ship (can be applied to shields if any remain)

Large x Flotilla - no damage to the large, deal one face up to the flotilla

i can take THAT level of complexity

think its not difficult enough to deter anyone.

Do you know what needs to be thematically fixed?

Vader-BT. What is doing Vader on a Raider?

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Do you know what needs to be thematically fixed?

Vader-BT. What is doing Vader on a Raider?

How is Vader scratching off titles like Yavaris? Wouldn't it be more effective to overload the reactor or kill everyone on board rather than try to use your lightsaber to cross out the paint job on the hull?

40 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

How is Vader scratching off titles like Yavaris? Wouldn't it be more effective to overload the reactor or kill everyone on board rather than try to use your lightsaber to cross out the paint job on the hull?

What if he is trashing the thing that makes Yavaris... well, Yavaris...

Like a famous fighter C&C center...

or Demolishers modified engine and fire control system...

or Impetuous’ fighter targeting array...

or Mon Karren’s Precision targeting system...

or Home Ones’ tactical data feed array...

Titles to me just aren’t nameplates, they are signature modifications to frames... Just like the Millenium Falcon didn’t have a name plate... it had a set of special modifications and a reputation...

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

What if he is trashing the thing that makes Yavaris... well, Yavaris...

Like a famous fighter C&C center...

or Demolishers modified engine and fire control system...

or Impetuous’ fighter targeting array...

or Mon Karren’s Precision targeting system...

or Home Ones’ tactical data feed array...

Titles to me just aren’t nameplates, they are signature modifications to frames... Just like the Millenium Falcon didn’t have a name plate... it had a set of special modifications and a reputation...

I think titles are just names. You can transfer equipment and personnel between ships. You can modify the ships to do the same thing, but you only have 1 Yavaris because that's the name of the ship, which is non-transferable.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

I think titles are just names. You can transfer equipment and personnel between ships. You can modify the ships to do the same thing, but you only have 1 Yavaris because that's the name of the ship, which is non-transferable.

I feel its just as ridiculous to have something better just because you call it something...

That's some real power of positive thinking stuff, borderline blind faith, which is very hard for me to buy into.

I do accept the question of what comes first - the signature modifications, or the name?

Just now, Drasnighta said:

I feel its just as ridiculous to have something better just because you call it something...

That's some real power of positive thinking stuff, borderline blind faith, which is very hard for me to buy into.

Well it is just a game mechanic. It seems silly Vader can remove titles from ships as well, but that's the game we play.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Well it is just a game mechanic. It seems silly Vader can remove titles from ships as well, but that's the game we play.

Flavor does not equal rules. Sometimes flavor has to give way to ease of gameplay.