In Total and complete Jest, of course

16 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

In a way, Armada is sort of fills the gap between X-wing and Rebellion. Sure right now the only thing is the Corellian Conflict but it is to be expected that there will be more campaigns. Given the set up of Armada the longer game length Armada fits the campaign system better than X-wing, while X-wing with its narrow scope is easier to keep in meta balance.

But still Armada seems more epic than X-wing in terms of strategic level.

My apologies for earlier, I was being a bit of a pedant. I should have soft-pedaled my criticism more. This is mostly just a question of terminology, not intent.

You're right, of course, that Armada is greater in scale. Where X-Wing does not even deal with squadron-size skirmishes, Armada has squadrons as a small part of the game. However, I don't think that makes X-Wing ineligible for campaigns. The Heroes of the Aturi Cluster demonstrates that, IMO. Given that the nature of warfare in the Galactic Civil War, I would imagine that HotAC does a better job of modeling such a war than Corellian Conflict does. It is also more 'epic' in the way that @Vergilius uses that term.

1 minute ago, Vergilius said:

Epic and strategic as adjectives refer to different things. Presumably, someone describing Armada as epic does not mean that it conveys a poetic story of the achievements of some great hero, but merely picks up on the idea that the scope that the game is intended to simulate is bigger than X-wing. That use is fair enough. This just doesn't have anything to do with strategic.

Now, I think it is fair to say that Armada has more strategic depth to it than X-wing, and by that I mean that the amount of effort that you have to expend coming up with a long range master plan is greater. But in the grand scheme of things, once you are at the board, as Mikael Hasselstien expresses correctly, you're looking at a largely tactical game.

If you want a game that focuses almost entirely upon grand strategy with almost no tactics, then Europa Universalis is a game that attempts to simulate that.

I love me some Europa Universalis. (The computer game, that is. Is there a board game?)

However, I would also disagree with you. When we talk about 'strategy' as opposed to 'tactics', I don't think that the general use of terms is helpful, and they get muddled with their use in terms of the levels of war. Aside from the levels, they also have a different set of meanings. By those 'tactics' refers to matching effectively matching superior capabilities against inferior capabilities in order to win. 'Strategy' means guessing what your opponent's decisions are going to be, and acting accordingly. Since the maneuver dials in X-Wing have a greater impact on the game than the command dials in Armada do, and those are the things that are really hidden from view, I'd say that X-Wing probably has more strategic depth than Armada does - because more of the game is hidden, and there is less rail-roading and more freedom of action in X-Wing.

But that's my interpretation of the terms as they are used in the sciences that deal with these things. YMMV

1 hour ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

My apologies for earlier, I was being a bit of a pedant. I should have soft-pedaled my criticism more. This is mostly just a question of terminology, not intent.

You're right, of course, that Armada is greater in scale. Where X-Wing does not even deal with squadron-size skirmishes, Armada has squadrons as a small part of the game. However, I don't think that makes X-Wing ineligible for campaigns. The Heroes of the Aturi Cluster demonstrates that, IMO. Given that the nature of warfare in the Galactic Civil War, I would imagine that HotAC does a better job of modeling such a war than Corellian Conflict does. It is also more 'epic' in the way that @Vergilius uses that term.

I love me some Europa Universalis. (The computer game, that is. Is there a board game?)

However, I would also disagree with you. When we talk about 'strategy' as opposed to 'tactics', I don't think that the general use of terms is helpful, and they get muddled with their use in terms of the levels of war. Aside from the levels, they also have a different set of meanings. By those 'tactics' refers to matching effectively matching superior capabilities against inferior capabilities in order to win. 'Strategy' means guessing what your opponent's decisions are going to be, and acting accordingly. Since the maneuver dials in X-Wing have a greater impact on the game than the command dials in Armada do, and those are the things that are really hidden from view, I'd say that X-Wing probably has more strategic depth than Armada does - because more of the game is hidden, and there is less rail-roading and more freedom of action in X-Wing.

But that's my interpretation of the terms as they are used in the sciences that deal with these things. YMMV

That's fair enough.

My introduction to competitive games like Armada came through chess, where the distinction between the two terms is preserved. I wouldn't consider that a general use of the terms. It might be specialized for the context, but there's definitely some overlap with how the terms get deployed elsewhere. The "guessing what you're opponent are going to do" makes strategy sound a whole lot less scientific than what I understand it to be, especially with the X-wing illustration.

1 hour ago, Vergilius said:

That's fair enough.

My introduction to competitive games like Armada came through chess, where the distinction between the two terms is preserved. I wouldn't consider that a general use of the terms. It might be specialized for the context, but there's definitely some overlap with how the terms get deployed elsewhere. The "guessing what you're opponent are going to do" makes strategy sound a whole lot less scientific than what I understand it to be, especially with the X-wing illustration.

Sure, 'guessing what your opponent is going to do' can be expanded on by things like 'under given circumstances, which provide x%, y%, and z% probabilities of success' and 'efficiency vs. probability' quotients, and whatevernot - but it all comes down to that first statement.

How do you 'science' it up?

7 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

How do you 'science' it up?

Presumably, by calling what you're describing a science, the scientific method is applicable to it. Its hard to science up utter randomness. Now, it is probably fair to call it a science, but only because we expect certain constants to hold that successfully limit the number of possible choices.

The biggest phase for predicting what the opponent will do and acting accordingly is actually in the fleet design phase of both games. Being anti-meta is ultimately a strategic decision. But this also aligns perfectly with what I've said all along, namely that most of the real strategic is in fleet design, and once you're at the board, most of the decisions have already been made. The rest is tactics for the present match-up.

11 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

My apologies for earlier, I was being a bit of a pedant. I should have soft-pedaled my criticism more. This is mostly just a question of terminology, not intent.

You're right, of course, that Armada is greater in scale. Where X-Wing does not even deal with squadron-size skirmishes, Armada has squadrons as a small part of the game. However, I don't think that makes X-Wing ineligible for campaigns. The Heroes of the Aturi Cluster demonstrates that, IMO. Given that the nature of warfare in the Galactic Civil War, I would imagine that HotAC does a better job of modeling such a war than Corellian Conflict does. It is also more 'epic' in the way that @Vergilius uses that term.

I love me some Europa Universalis. (The computer game, that is. Is there a board game?)

However, I would also disagree with you. When we talk about 'strategy' as opposed to 'tactics', I don't think that the general use of terms is helpful, and they get muddled with their use in terms of the levels of war. Aside from the levels, they also have a different set of meanings. By those 'tactics' refers to matching effectively matching superior capabilities against inferior capabilities in order to win. 'Strategy' means guessing what your opponent's decisions are going to be, and acting accordingly. Since the maneuver dials in X-Wing have a greater impact on the game than the command dials in Armada do, and those are the things that are really hidden from view, I'd say that X-Wing probably has more strategic depth than Armada does - because more of the game is hidden, and there is less rail-roading and more freedom of action in X-Wing.

But that's my interpretation of the terms as they are used in the sciences that deal with these things. YMMV

there IS a board game, mikael.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4102/europa-universalis

As you can imagine, its not a 1:1 translation, but there is not much simplification from computer to board, as there normally is

Why do you try and guess what your opponent is going to do?

Just tell them what their best move is and explain why. Takes the guesswork out.

5 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Why do you try and guess what your opponent is going to do?

Just tell them what their best move is and explain why. Takes the guesswork out.

Because if I were your opponent, I'd flip the table.

I used to have a regular opponent who would not give my brain a moment's freedom to focus. He would be talking all the time about how good or bad my moves were, or what I should have done - if he was not already telling me the moves I should make and why - so that when I did something else he would tell me why I made a mistake.

Those who have been around this forum for more than a year or two might know who I am talking about.

3 minutes ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Because if I were your opponent, I'd flip the table.

I used to have a regular opponent who would not give my brain a moment's freedom to focus. He would be talking all the time about how good or bad my moves were, or what I should have done - if he was not already telling me the moves I should make and why - so that when I did something else he would tell me why I made a mistake.

Those who have been around this forum for more than a year or two might know who I am talking about.

I know what you mean.

I dont actually do it very often, and even when I do it comes alongside a lot of respectfull silence whilst they mull it over.

For me it is tactics (first, before all other).

First of all know your own fleet. Know the strength and weakness.
If you know where your problems are, you can easier try to avoid them. For example. if you have only few ships, one weakness might be a MSU list with MC30 or Demos that go in and out and deny you the chance to fire back.
And building a fleet with a plan or tactic is really important. Just taking a few cards without any hidden agenda is not working (best example: using Sato without any squadrons, just because you like his picture).

After this know your opponents fleet, and find out the tactic or combo. Knowing what your opponent will do is really helping.
If you cannot see what he is doing, you will play right into his hands. MC80 + 5 or 6 Transports for example. If you do not see that he is aiming for the last/first with the MC80, you might do a wrong decision on the match (being first or second player for example, or placing your ship in a bad spot).

Another part of the tactic is the choice of the mission. The mission can decide over wining the game and loosing it. If you are first player you need to check what mission does hurt you least.
If you pick Fire Lanes when your opponent has strategic and you don't, you already lost the game. There is nearly on way that you can catch up this many points that he will gain from the mission.
Same for your missions (when building the fleet). Pick missions that fit to the fleet, not these that everyone take or that you know. Ask yourself on each mission, what does it give to me, what does it give to the opponent and is there any chance that it can backfire on me. Advanced Gunnery is a really good example for it. It will help you with your big ship. But what if your opponent has more ships and has a big fast ship that can just dodge your arc? How can you handle this?

There are so many more tactical decisions that can decide over win or loss.
Maneuverability for example. If you don't know how far an enemy ship can come, you might do a wrong move with your own ships. The Arquitens is normally a real brick. With 0-0-2 on the movement. But if your opponent has Jerjerod and Engine Techs on the Arquitens, it can suddenly do 180° Turns (nearly). If you know this, you can calculate it in. But if finding it out in the game, when it does it, might be to late.

Or have a plan ahead of the match. The match will last a maximum of 6 turns. Sometimes this give you only one swing with a ship and an attack. It might not be able to come around for second try.
The Rieekan Ram list with CR90 is a good example for this. If they cannot kill the enemy in the first ram round, they might not get a second chance, because they will not turn around fast enough (this is how i won against it all the time).

At last a word to squadrons (my precious). It is really important to know how far your and the opponents squadrons can move. Where can they be at the end of the turn, where can you be. This need some good guessing of the ranges (if you know that the range of a speed 4 squadron to attack something is range 5 + 1 thumb it helps a bit ).

The second part on the squadrons is, only engage when there is something for you to gain, and never waste your squadrons for something that does not help.
Some of my opponents used Squadrons to block some areas on the map. They didn't attack with them, they just moved them to a place and were hopping that they stall me. In this case it was pointless, they just died, gave me some free points, and had no other use for him. If they would have attacked, the might have killed a squadron (or two) from me.

One of my weaknesses are still the obstacles. These CAN be really important on placement. But normally i have always the same (or a similar) tactic to deploy them. I use them to deny (or at least make it harder for the opponent) to reach certain spots on the map. Or to give cover to my Squadrons. But i know a few use the obstacles extreme tactical to give the own ships cover from squadrons. With the old Rhymer it was a good tactic to place the obstacles where the ship want to in turn 2 or 3. And place them right there, to obstruct the line of sight for the squadrons and to protect the ship. But this need a lot of preparation (you have to know how far your ship will go in the turns, and you have to stick to it.

This is one more part. Stick to your plan.... I messed this up at the euros for example. I changed my plan and made a wrong decision. This might cost you the game. Only change your plan when it cannot work anymore .

And there is so much more. I might write a few more comments later. I guess this will do it for a first impression.

So, I'm bit late to the party. I can't keep up with this forum, I guess just need to give up on real life.

I don't think I'll say anything revealing, because topic was pretty much exhausted, but since I was called let me summarise shortly and throw in my two cents in the end.

For TL:DR scroll down to the end of the post.

On 23.11.2017 at 5:59 PM, ManInTheBox said:

Is it in the planning stage: list building and concocting a solid plan to deal with different archetypes?

Is it in the deployment: using the obstacles and misleading the opponent to gain advantage?

Is it in the execution: understanding fundamental tactics such as forking, keeping a cool head and adapting the plan on the fly, being able to visualise the flow of the battle several turns ahead?

It's probably all of the above, but let's break it down so that it's possible to identify unique elements and learn from them.

As you said, it's all of above. This is why I like Armada so much (besides it beeing Star Wars space battle game). You need to build your list and optimise it. You have to choose good objectives. You can loose game straight away by bad deployment. You have to prepare for everything on all stages. And that is why it is so rewarding game.

On 23.11.2017 at 6:09 PM, geek19 said:

Practice. Lots and lots of practice with your list in multiple situations, practice thinking about how you play, and in all honesty, there's a bit of luck in the dice roll and damage cards. But I've gotten better with lots of practice.

Practice definitely helps.

On 23.11.2017 at 6:57 PM, Vergilius said:

Practice counts, but some of it comes down to raw starting talent. Now, I'm not out to put anyone down with that, and I'll be the very first person to encourage everyone to be absolutely all they can be, because raw starting talent can be difficult to measure, but there is such a thing and it does determine where your ceiling in ability is going to be.

That is true as well, but even without a talent you can be good craftsmen, even if you're not becoming an artist.

On 23.11.2017 at 6:53 PM, Coldhands said:

I Think best players try to be ahead of the wave, read the local meta well, and prepare accordingly, constantly working on surprising opponents.

I think that comes down to surprising your opponents. If they can't prepare for your strategy when they build fleet and later during the game they can't read you and react to your moves you can catch them off guard.

On 24.11.2017 at 1:07 AM, Dameon13 said:

Competitive tournament players come up with a list and then collect it.

Non competitive tournament players come up a list from their collection.

That is observation I made as well (playing WFB for over 15 years). Not everyone buys 8 YT2400 or 4 flottillas. If you have this mindset that "oh, this will look nice on the board" you are limiting your options. And then we have this forum threads "how to win with ISD against Aceholes"?

I love Star Wars and I want to play epic battles as well. And I sometimes do. But when I'm going to one of these few tournaments I can find time for, I take best fleet I can.

On 24.11.2017 at 5:08 AM, kmanweiss said:

1. The ability to identify good synergy in builds. The ability to be able to identify it yourself is important. I've found this true in many games. You can couple down a build, a fleet, a strategy from someone on line, but if you can't understand the underlying elements at a base level, you won't likely excel. They need to also see the synergy in opponent builds, and identify how to disrupt those synergies.

2. The ability to critically analyze your own success and failure and most importantly, learn from it. You won, but how could you have won by a bigger margin? Did any of your upgrades fail to live up to their expectation? What mistakes did you make? Many times a winner can let their success blind them to what mistakes were made. Many times a loser can blame the opponents build, bad dice/luck, or some other external factor instead of learning from their failure.

3. The ability to 'read' your opponent. If you were playing that fleet against yours, how would you deploy. If you deploy this ship here, how would they deploy? If you move here, how would they respond. If you activate this ship now, which ship will they activate in response.

4. The ability to predict the meta. By following the forums, communicating with other players, seeing what types of builds are popular, they can craft something that is likely to have an advantage against the majority of the most common builds.

5. Practice. The best players are likely people that have been playing their builds in local tournaments and using that to fine tune and hone their builds and strategies. But that's just a start. They also likely play against their friends, and if they are lucky, they have friends willing to test common builds against them to test new strategies. On top of that, they may very well play against themselves. This gives them the ability to test even more scenarios, and really study what their build looks like from the other side.

6. Critical strategic consideration of objectives (currently my biggest weakness). They pick the best objectives. This isn't as simple as 'this objective would be good for me' but also 'this objective could hurt me against these types of fleets, so even though it's good for me, it would be better to take this other one that can't be used against me'. On top of that, they carefully consider how they would play against each and every objective if they are have to choose from the opponents objectives, and can figure out on the spot which objectives would benefit them more than the opponent.

7. Experience. Overall experience of the game helps to make the previous 6 points happen quickly and innately.

8. Solid, dependable opponents. If you win easily against everyone in your local area with nearly anything you take to the table...chances are you are going to fail hard outside that area. If one meta dominates your local tournaments, chances are you are going to struggle against anything outside of that meta. You need to be constantly challenged to progress.

You don't need all 8 of these factors to succeed, but the more the merrier. Being extremely good at 1 can make up for a weakness in another area. Say you don't have good opponents and friends to play against. This hurts 5 and 8. But if you make up with it more practice against yourself in a very critical fashion, then you can overcome the other issues.

Really good thoughts above.

On 24.11.2017 at 9:52 AM, Ardaedhel said:

This is a big deal in tactical execution. Being able to look several moves ahead and read not only what opportunities your moves will give you, but what your opponent's considerations will be and how you can force him into unfavorable decisions on your terms is a really big deal.

Relatedly, taking away options as quickly as possible is always beneficial, even if you don't see the benefits right away. Force them to burn discards and otherwise blow one-shot options early so you can leverage their absence later. The threat of an unused Lando, Pursuant, or Hondo is sometimes more valuable than the effect itself.

I agree with what pretty much everybody else said: practice is critical. But there's more to it than that (of course).

- Debrief (...)

- Try to get a sparring buddy (...)

- Don't get stuck on the Flavor of the Month (...)

- Fly MC30s .

And supplement to above points.

On 23.11.2017 at 11:15 PM, Irokenics said:

Passion

In the end of the day I think this is most important.

I mean what other reason you may have to sacrifice your free time to move plastic spaceships around your kitchen table? For me it always was my love for Star Wars and space battles. Battle of Endor was always my favourite scene from OT. This brought me to Armada and good rules, great community and nice miniatures kept me playing. Otherwise it could be any other game. The fact that it is something that I'm passionate about makes me to think about game all the time. I play, I watch and read battle reports, I try to read meaningful discussions on the forum and blogs, I netlist and create my own fleets. I don't have a lot of free time, but I gave up on any other games (besides boardgames occasionally). Armada is the only competetive game I play. I feel that being focused on just one game helps me to get better.

But I feel that in my case, experience from other wargames helped a lot. Some of the things which were mantioned above are true for many wargames. Prepare for everything. Practise. Read the battlefield. Have a plan and implement it. React to your enemy movements. Don't bite more than you can chew (read as: sometimes play for 5-6 to do not lose 1-10).

I remember one of pivotal points of my life as a player was reading The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Of course it is about ancient ways of making war, but there are some general rules which are true nowdays as well.