For those that don't read satire well:

Yes, most of these suggestions would improve these ships. But they'd also increase the point costs of the ships and monotonize the game. How much fun would the game be if all the ships just had no flaws and no strengths relative to each other?

These ships are intentionally designed to have flaws. A Weapons Slot on the MC80 would be awesome. It would also be an unstoppable Ackbaring killing machine that cost like 130 points--or, more likely, just ruled out Ackbar at the mechanical level from ever being introduced into the game in the first place. A Raider with a redirect would be awesome. It would also cost like 15% more and be largely relegated to one niche role: flak would be the only thing a 65-point Raider with a redirect would be cost-effective at doing. I'll be the first to agree that the Nebulon's not a great ship, but it's not because of the lack of redirect or side shields, it's because it's outclassed in it primary role by the cheaper CR90A (different rant).

I keep seeing calls to "fix" cheaper ships by comparing them to more expensive ones. The ISD costs 150% what the VSD costs, of course it's better. Yes, a 73-point VSD can be popped by 13 damage with XI7 and an acc. A 72-point AF2 can be popped by 10 with XI7. A 63-point MC30 can be popped by 8 with XI7, and you don't need the acc. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

@Ardaedhelis using all my sarcasm for me here. I feel redundant.

So I propose to change the MC30 to 1 hull.

Give Raider double brace and a single evade instead of double evade and a single brace. Seriously double evade on a black & blue ship?

30 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

But we don't want it to be too broken, so let's swap out that Ordnance slot (which would be ridiculous now)

Yeah, about that...

I'd change the VSD-II to have movement 3 at the same cost. Fits the fluff as these were given upgraded engines over the VSD-I

3 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

The ISD is virtually the only ship you ever see the Empire use in the OT. But that's not the case in Armada. I think this needs to be fixed.

Drop the ISD's cost to 100. Across the board, all four of them.

Also needs better shields: the dials max out at 6, and what's better shielded than an ISD? Nothing, so 6 shields on every side. Plus, mine keep getting killed by Yavaris B-wings when I don't bring fighter cover, so this minor change would help with that.

The old lore indicated that mon cal ships had better shields than imperial ships. But had weaker hull armour, if I recall correctly.

I see a lot of suggestions here for the Nebulon B to have a redirect or increased side shields. I must say I completely disagree. I like that it was designed with a clear weakness in its side arc, with a relative strength in its front. And it makes sense looking at how flimsy its connecting bit looks.

My personal 'fix' for it would be to add another upgrade slot, as I feel it is rather light for upgrade choices. Not sure what though, as Weapons and Offensive retro would be too strong with Yavaris. Therefore maybe Defensive retro, or a second Turbolaser or possibly the Fleet Support slot would be interesting.

For Raider, contain would help it in its anti-fighter role, and not over-tune it.

1 hour ago, ISD Avenger said:

The old lore indicated that mon cal ships had better shields than imperial ships. But had weaker hull armour, if I recall correctly.

I believe it wasn’t that the shields were stronger, but that they recovered back up to full very quickly. I think the Home One style had equal-ish to the ISD

4 hours ago, LTD said:

You keep promising ponies, but who is going to pay for them?

The Rebels. We're going to make the ISD great again (with a pony!), and the Rebels are going to pay for it.

4 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Yes, most of these suggestions would improve these ships. But they'd also increase the point costs of the ships and monotonize the game. How much fun would the game be if all the ships just had no flaws and no strengths relative to each other?

Which is exactly why all I did was call for a price reduction in the Interdictor (and the VSD). I don't usually agree with Milton Friedman, but "get the prices right" seems to be an adequate solution here.

If you make the VSD any cheaper I will wreck you all with Konstantine. Be careful what you wish for.

13 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

If you make the VSD any cheaper I will wreck you all with Konstantine. Be careful what you wish for.

You're right, Konstantine is so OP it's ridiculous.

For the Raider: I feel like they will fix it's defenses with a Task Force or two. One that a gave redirects as a function of the Task Force would be neat. Some others mentioned a title and this is where my mind went. It would be a good fit for the ships class too.

For the Nebulon-B: I agree with @Divad that the Nebulon-B looks right on paper for the theme of it's structural shape. But this is where theme vs. game get in a fight. The theme is right but it's not very supportive of the game, which is why so many people are asking for a fix. And why I say that the most tame adjustment would have been (as I'm assuming we were originally talking about original design changes and not post release fixes) was to adjust it's front arc. Make it a bit wider and sit up forward a bit more. I think this would help it as a gunnery platform that it looks like it is on paper, with three red on the nose, while still leaving the thematic weakness.

For the Interdictor and Victory crew: since the release of Capacitors I've been playing with the empire for a change and having a good deal of both fun and success with this very theme driven fleet. I'd say try it before you knock it. Just a note, I change around the Vic's turbolaser slot like every game as I haven't settled in anything to do with them. ?

Flytrap (392/400)
================
Interdictor Suppression Refit (90 + 30)
+ Admiral Konstantine (23)
+ Disposable Capacitors (3)
+ G7-X Grav Well Projector (2)
+ Grav Shift Reroute (2)
Victory II-class Star Destroyer (85 + 12)
+ Disposable Capacitors (3)
+ Leading Shots (4)
+ Quad Battery Turrets (5)
Victory II-class Star Destroyer (85 + 12)
+ Disposable Capacitors (3)
+ Leading Shots (4)
+ Quad Battery Turrets (5)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23)
4 x Tie Fighter Squadron (8)
Station Assault
Contested Outpost
Navigational Hazards

8 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Also a pony.

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

For the Raider: I feel like they will fix it's defenses with a Task Force or two. One that a gave redirects as a function of the Task Force would be neat. Some others mentioned a title and this is where my mind went. It would be a good fit for the ships class too.

For the Nebulon-B: I agree with @Divad that the Nebulon-B looks right on paper for the theme of it's structural shape. But this is where theme vs. game get in a fight. The theme is right but it's not very supportive of the game, which is why so many people are asking for a fix. And why I say that the most tame adjustment would have been (as I'm assuming we were originally talking about original design changes and not post release fixes) was to adjust it's front arc. Make it a bit wider and sit up forward a bit more. I think this would help it as a gunnery platform that it looks like it is on paper, with three red on the nose, while still leaving the thematic weakness.

For the Interdictor and Victory crew: since the release of Capacitors I've been playing with the empire for a change and having a good deal of both fun and success with this very theme driven fleet. I'd say try it before you knock it. Just a note, I change around the Vic's turbolaser slot like every game as I haven't settled in anything to do with them. ?

Flytrap (392/400)
================
Interdictor Suppression Refit (90 + 30)
+ Admiral Konstantine (23)
+ Disposable Capacitors (3)
+ G7-X Grav Well Projector (2)
+ Grav Shift Reroute (2)
Victory II-class Star Destroyer (85 + 12)
+ Disposable Capacitors (3)
+ Leading Shots (4)
+ Quad Battery Turrets (5)
Victory II-class Star Destroyer (85 + 12)
+ Disposable Capacitors (3)
+ Leading Shots (4)
+ Quad Battery Turrets (5)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23)
4 x Tie Fighter Squadron (8)
Station Assault
Contested Outpost
Navigational Hazards

I feel like this list would just be so much better with Motti... How often are you proccing Konstantine? What are the results? How is having just Konstantine und no other speed modifiers?

12 hours ago, axe238 said:

Victory - weapons team out, support team in (engine techs, nav team) offensive retrofit out, defensive retrofit in (advanced projectors). All fixed!

Funny:

https://armadashipyards.com/2015/08/29/victory-class-star-destroyer/

1 hour ago, DiabloAzul said:

Funny:

https://armadashipyards.com/2015/08/29/victory-class-star-destroyer/

With another ISD coming in with wave 7, I think it would be cool if FFG might do something similar with the VSD or release new ship cards.

Wow! I'll pass the credit to you then DA. (I don't have a card!) ?

Give the Raider another AA dice. It could be a title or an upgrade.

This ship could see more play time this way

@MandalorianMoose

Motti would certainly be good here, there's a chance it might be way better. But Konstantine makes my opponent make really hard decisions and changes the way they fly. The whole fleet is designed with the objective of making their normal tactics and strategy not work. First it wants to take initiative and play off odd objectives, or if it doesn't it messes with the deployment/setup to the point where they might be out of their comfort zone anyway and pull an odd change in my favor. Then with three medium ships on the board and some good understanding of formation maneuvers I can make a very good and aimed drag net to mess with their speeds usually by turn critical, I can trac every ship in their combat formation. Usually by the time I want to be tracking my specific targets, I'm getting it plus more on accident. Fleet got named flytrap for a reason. So for personal play preference for casual I have now fun thinking through with Kon. But now that you mention it, I might try Motti.

My vote is for a tweak to the Neb. Swap a brace for a redirect.

This ship has so much potential, and some sweet titles, but it's so soft. 3+ dmg to a side arc and you're doing hull damage even with the brace. Wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that the side arcs are HUGE. It's pretty hard to position yourself in a way that the side arcs aren't exposed to something, and it's easy for the enemy to get double arcs on your side due to their size.

The redirect would allow you to shunt some damage to the rear arc that rarely gets exposed, or to the heavily shielded front arc. Combined with the decent engineering value of the ship and the command stack of 2 means you'd have the ability to survive some attacks and build shields, or repair damage accordingly. A concentrated attack into that side arc is still a major threat though.

6 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

My vote is for a tweak to the Neb. Swap a brace for a redirect.

This ship has so much potential, and some sweet titles, but it's so soft. 3+ dmg to a side arc and you're doing hull damage even with the brace. Wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that the side arcs are HUGE. It's pretty hard to position yourself in a way that the side arcs aren't exposed to something, and it's easy for the enemy to get double arcs on your side due to their size.

The redirect would allow you to shunt some damage to the rear arc that rarely gets exposed, or to the heavily shielded front arc. Combined with the decent engineering value of the ship and the command stack of 2 means you'd have the ability to survive some attacks and build shields, or repair damage accordingly. A concentrated attack into that side arc is still a major threat though.

The problem with this is that many games are already a race to see if you can bring down Yavaris before it can give enough squadron commands to win the game.

Making the ship even harder to kill would push it over the top in efficacy.

On 11/26/2017 at 4:12 AM, Ardaedhel said:

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Day made. Thanks.

On 11/26/2017 at 4:00 AM, GammonLord said:

A minister Tua style officer for the Rebs to give my poor battered Lib a defensive retro.

Some kind of Tua style upgrade to give the Victory engine techs would be nice as well.

I like it, but I only really want a speed bump on the VSD II. Thematically the VSD II was supposed to be faster than the VSD I. That was one of the biggest reasons for the refit.

2 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

I like it, but I only really want a speed bump on the VSD II. Thematically the VSD II was supposed to be faster than the VSD I. That was one of the biggest reasons for the refit.

Which is okay and all, but we have some pretty large chunks of speed difference.

i mean, the Vic 2 is faster than the Vic 1, But is it Gladiator speed, or Hammerhead speed... or is it’s faster just not represented because it was only a little bit faster?

7 minutes ago, Democratus said:

The problem with this is that many games are already a race to see if you can bring down Yavaris before it can give enough squadron commands to win the game.

Making the ship even harder to kill would push it over the top in efficacy.

Absolutely true. That the problem with the ship though. As Yavaris, it's a great little ship. Strip the title and it's a handicap. The redirect/brace is too strong of a combo for Yavaris...but would make regular Nebs more flyable.

How about upping the side arc shields to 2 damage. This only adds 1 health to Yavaris for the quick kill, so only a modest upgrade there. However, it means the stray shot against a regular Neb is easier to handle. The engineering value again helps in recovering that extra shield.