Another thread got me thinking about the importance of weaknesses in game design. I find that in games I enjoy units/factions are defined as much by their weaknesses as their strengths.

So, what should be the weakness of the various ships in the game? Is there an Armada ship that has no true weakness? Is there a ship that has too many?

To answer my own question I will use the Assault Frigate. It doesn't have an obvious weakness other than the fact that it really isn't great at anything. Reasonably maneuverable, okay firepower, a decent carrier, and some durability, but not much that stands out. Does that qualify as a weakness?

Those are all weaknesses.

Low maneuver. Larger ship

low damage output. Hard to use arcs except for gunnery teaming

expensive

compare without commander to mc30. It immediately has all the upgrades it needs to. More damage? Check. Defense. Check. Mobility. Check.

Only has a slightly harder time at range but can be mitigated by huge mobility. And can’t command squadrons that well.

All these medium and large ships are becoming carrier only. And multipurpose carriers are don’t diibg well in this meta!

For some ships the cost is a weakness (Interdictor, Command Arq.) that you pay for premium abilities.

Does cost count as a weakness? If not, ISD-II doesn’t have an obvious weakness.

If so... ISD-II anyway.

It depends what you're comparing it to, but in a general sense I'd say the AF2's weaknesses are:

- Lack of burst damage
- Unreliable damage output
- Lack of duplicate tokens means they're all one-use-or-burn, and makes ECM really important for the def retro slot
- High command value makes it hard to drive
- Moderately high price point, especially for the AF2A

3 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Those are all weaknesses.

Low maneuver. Larger ship

low damage output. Hard to use arcs except for gunnery teaming

expensive

compare without commander to mc30. It immediately has all the upgrades it needs to. More damage? Check. Defense. Check. Mobility. Check.

Only has a slightly harder time at range but can be mitigated by huge mobility. And can’t command squadrons that well.

But it can command squadrons well, especially with flight controllers. It's got a 3, the second highest in the game. Other than the HMC80 command, it's the second highest in the Rebellion period.

3 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

All these medium and large ships are becoming carrier only. And multipurpose carriers are don’t diibg well in this meta!

Not trying to be confrontational, but how so? Ackbar strategic, Ackbar with A's and E's (hey @BiggsIRL ), there's a fair amount of them now. Thrawn is about to show up and he's going to be bringing in some multipurpose carriers slash ISDs/VSDs I bet.

I'll agree with your damage output assessment and poor maneuverability, but it's a good carrier still.

I would say weakness for mc30s are

-Hull

Now these last two go against what it was designed for so I'm not sure they count as weaknesses.

-Can't push squads

-Weak flak

As for the AF..

- Cost

- Command value

- Consistent damage

- Maybe tokens?

Neb-B and mc80L

- Side shields!!

mc80H1/Pelta

- Speed

Arquitens:
- No Burst Damage
- Maneuvers like a cow

Raider :
- No redirect
- Token suite designed for long range defense (on a short-range ship)

Victory:
- Maneuver
- Speed
- Cost (Vic II in particular)

Gladiator :
- No duplicate defense tokens

4 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Thrawn is about to show up and he's going to be bringing in some multipurpose carriers slash ISDs/VSDs I bet.

Not saying that this is what you're doing here, but I just want to point out that we should be careful in this thread to appropriately weight the ability to take an upgrade to mitigate a weakness .

The presence of a given mitigating upgrade slot is a strength, but if you're discounting a weakness on the basis of a certain upgrade being an option, you have to similarly remove the advantage of having that slot available and account for the increased cost of putting that upgrade on the ship.

Because Shmitty is raising this more as an interesting philosophical or game-design question rather than a tactical one, I think it's more valuable to account for strengths and weaknesses like that than to cover up every ship's weaknesses by pointing out the ways it can be mitigated. For example, the Nebulon's obvious weakness is those side arcs. That can be tactically mitigated by pointing the front forward , but that doesn't mean it's not a weakness. The MC80 Pickle's speed is a dramatic weakness that can be mitigated with ET, but then you need to account for the constraint to use Nav commands, the extra 8 points to the cost, the loss of the support slot, and the fact that that still doesn't allow it to jump over things that the true-speed-3 ISD can.

Just my $.02.

10 minutes ago, geek19 said:

But it can command squadrons well, especially with flight controllers. It's got a 3, the second highest in the game. Other than the HMC80 command, it's the second highest in the Rebellion period.

Not trying to be confrontational, but how so? Ackbar strategic, Ackbar with A's and E's (hey @BiggsIRL ), there's a fair amount of them now. Thrawn is about to show up and he's going to be bringing in some multipurpose carriers slash ISDs/VSDs I bet.

I'll agree with your damage output assessment and poor maneuverability, but it's a good carrier still.

I think you and I are saying the same thing. I mentioned its really only left with the carrier role, and it does it quite well. Also, I mentioned in the meta builds yesterday Gallant Haven specifically.

The other two lists you mention... I have not seen in tournament lists, can you or Biggs show us?

Therefore, I've ONLY seen the AF used as a carrier. Not anymore as Ackbar. And honestly, it makes me pretty sad that that's the only use for what used to be my favorite ship. Especially since I have no interest in Gallant Haven Flight Controller Rebel Multirole. If I wanted to do that I'd just roll back the Wave5 nerf and go back to not playing the game.

Also, the recent boogeyman was 5/8 uses of Ackbar MC80. And then dual MC80 Ackbars won a tournament. And I use this build cuz its something I theorized upon seeing the shift in the meta.

It's also of note that FFG has worked to patch some of the more glaring weaknesses that detracted from game play.

They have worked hard to bring the Victory back.

5 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

It depends what you're comparing it to, but in a general sense I'd say the AF2's weaknesses are:
- Unreliable damage output

This is the biggest weakness of the AFMkII. There is no reliable way to get damage out of it.

10 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Not saying that this is what you're doing here, but I just want to point out that we should be careful in this thread to appropriately weight the ability to take an upgrade to mitigate a weakness .

The presence of a given mitigating upgrade slot is a strength, but if you're discounting a weakness on the basis of a certain upgrade being an option, you have to similarly remove the advantage of having that slot available and account for the increased cost of putting that upgrade on the ship.

Because Shmitty is raising this more as an interesting philosophical or game-design question rather than a tactical one, I think it's more valuable to account for strengths and weaknesses like that than to cover up every ship's weaknesses by pointing out the ways it can be mitigated. For example, the Nebulon's obvious weakness is those side arcs. That can be tactically mitigated by pointing the front forward , but that doesn't mean it's not a weakness. The MC80 Pickle's speed is a dramatic weakness that can be mitigated with ET, but then you need to account for the constraint to use Nav commands, the extra 8 points to the cost, the loss of the support slot, and the fact that that still doesn't allow it to jump over things that the true-speed-3 ISD can.

Just my $.02.

I honestly wish Thrawn and Sloane's things were more universal.

Sloane at least for ALL Imperials as a generic upgrade.

Thrown, I really think this is needed on the Rebel side

17 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Just my $.02.

Nah, I get you. Makes sense, too, as theoretically any Imp ship can take Tua so the VSD has no weaknesses*!

(Obviously not true, but reductio ad absurdum there). My point that I believe is that multipurpose carriers are starting to come back slash are still part of the meta I feel.

17 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I think you and I are saying the same thing. I mentioned its really only left with the carrier role, and it does it quite well. Also, I mentioned in the meta builds yesterday Gallant Haven specifically.

The other two lists you mention... I have not seen in tournament lists, can you or Biggs show us?

Therefore, I've ONLY seen the AF used as a carrier. Not anymore as Ackbar. And honestly, it makes me pretty sad that that's the only use for what used to be my favorite ship. Especially since I have no interest in Gallant Haven Flight Controller Rebel Multirole. If I wanted to do that I'd just roll back the Wave5 nerf and go back to not playing the game.

Yeah, my misunderstanding. I thought you were saying it wasn't a good carrier, which, it's fine enough as. It's no Yavaris ability, but Haven does a different thing.

As for tournament lists, I don't specifically mean AF there. I'm basing Biggs' designed Garm fleet with the assumption that he WAS running the Defiance as an occasional carrier. At the very least, throwing squadrons out at least once makes something a multirole carrier in MY eyes.

As for it not being taken with Ackbar, (non sarcastically) what's stopping you? I started taking one with my Dodonna fleet and it's weirdly working better than I expected it to.

8 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Just my $.02.

Nah, I get you. Makes sense, too, as theoretically any Imp ship can take Tua so the VSD has no weaknesses*!

(Obviously not true, but reductio ad absurdum there). My point that I believe is that multipurpose carriers are starting to come back slash are still part of the meta I feel.

9 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I think you and I are saying the same thing. I mentioned its really only left with the carrier role, and it does it quite well. Also, I mentioned in the meta builds yesterday Gallant Haven specifically.

The other two lists you mention... I have not seen in tournament lists, can you or Biggs show us?

Therefore, I've ONLY seen the AF used as a carrier. Not anymore as Ackbar. And honestly, it makes me pretty sad that that's the only use for what used to be my favorite ship. Especially since I have no interest in Gallant Haven Flight Controller Rebel Multirole. If I wanted to do that I'd just roll back the Wave5 nerf and go back to not playing the game.

Yeah, my misunderstanding. I thought you were saying it wasn't a good carrier, which, it's fine enough as. It's no Yavaris ability, but Haven does a different thing.

As for tournament lists, I don't specifically mean AF there. I'm basing Biggs' designed Garm fleet with the assumption that he WAS running the Defiance as an occasional carrier. At the very least, throwing squadrons out at least once makes something a multirole carrier in MY eyes.

As for it not being taken with Ackbar, (non sarcastically) what's stopping you? I started taking one with my Dodonna fleet and it's weirdly working better than I expected it to.

Just now, geek19 said:

Nah, I get you. Makes sense, too, as theoretically any Imp ship can take Tua so the VSD has no weaknesses*!

(Obviously not true, but reductio ad absurdum there). My point that I believe is that multipurpose carriers are starting to come back slash are still part of the meta I feel.

Yeah, my misunderstanding. I thought you were saying it wasn't a good carrier, which, it's fine enough as. It's no Yavaris ability, but Haven does a different thing.

As for tournament lists, I don't specifically mean AF there. I'm basing Biggs' designed Garm fleet with the assumption that he WAS running the Defiance as an occasional carrier. At the very least, throwing squadrons out at least once makes something a multirole carrier in MY eyes.

As for it not being taken with Ackbar, (non sarcastically) what's stopping you? I started taking one with my Dodonna fleet and it's weirdly working better than I expected it to.

I honestly don't know what Biggs' build is. But Defiance is an MC80 no? Aren't we talking about the AF having no role except carrier+crapgundamage?

Not being taken with Ackbar: 2 AF + Cr90 Ackbar used to be my goto build - It had multiple problems: 1. mass squadrons was a hard counter. 2. smarter players did Better vs it, by knowing how to Block the front of the semi-conga. (The reason I use 2 + Cr90 is so that I don't NEED to conga as hard, this already made it much less prone to critical countering). Thus I found the build to be less than perfect, although good.

But Ackbar MC80 in this meta with flotillas making sure you get amazing shots via activation control has been even stronger. and much less predictable with ET. This makes it excel vs good opponents. Therefore, Imo, Ackbar MC80s are the better build. That's what stopping me.

As for other commanders... I can't find a reason I WANT an AF instead of something else like usually a MC30 if I'm not running Ackbar or I'm not doing some sort of carrier Gallant Haven work. Why? What else can you use it for? It has a crap time trying to get damage out, and its ability to double arc is pretty abysmal. Not maneuverable.

25 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Because Shmitty is raising this more as an interesting philosophical or game-design question rather than a tactical one, I think it's more valuable to account for strengths and weaknesses like that than to cover up every ship's weaknesses by pointing out the ways it can be mitigated. For example, the Nebulon's obvious weakness is those side arcs. That can be tactically mitigated by pointing the front forward , but that doesn't mean it's not a weakness. The MC80 Pickle's speed is a dramatic weakness that can be mitigated with ET, but then you need to account for the constraint to use Nav commands, the extra 8 points to the cost, the loss of the support slot, and the fact that that still doesn't allow it to jump over things that the true-speed-3 ISD can.

Just my $.02.

Pretty much this.

My general thinking is that it would not be too hard to smooth the weaknesses out of most ships in Armada. And that would basically kill the game. Those weaknesses define those ships and that is a good thing.They keep the game from becoming homogenous.

And upgrades are a great option to mitigate weaknesses, but those come with the associated costs.

One of the great list building challenges is the conflict between spending points to offset weaknesses vs. build on strengths. If ships did not have inherent weaknesses the challenge of list building would be lessened and the game would be worse for it.

21 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Another thread got me thinking about the importance of weaknesses in game design. I find that in games I enjoy units/factions are defined as much by their weaknesses as their strengths.

So, what should be the weakness of the various ships in the game? Is there an Armada ship that has no true weakness? Is there a ship that has too many?

To answer my own question I will use the Assault Frigate. It doesn't have an obvious weakness other than the fact that it really isn't great at anything. Reasonably maneuverable, okay firepower, a decent carrier, and some durability, but not much that stands out. Does that qualify as a weakness?

*quietly resists binging about the VSD again*

Certainly every ship needs to have its own characteristics to stand apart from others and make the game interesting. Broadly you could also group these characteristics into 'generalists' (like the CR-90 or ISD-II), or 'specialists' (The Quasar Fire, Interdictor, Nebulon-B). It becomes a problem when a ship does neither characteristic role particularly well, because their shortcomings inhibit them from doing one or the other, or there's another ship that does what you want it to do, better.

It can be frustrating when you have a ship you want to run but you can't find a strong place to use it in your list when other alternatives work more efficiently. For any ship, you can ask "If I take this, is there an alternative that lasts longer or can I get more activations with of the same effect out of more ships?" I feel the A/F is kind of in this boat... if you want a carrier, you have the incomparable Yavaris, the MC80, or the cheaper Pelta with a fleet command slot to compare with. It's only when you want to take Rebel Flight Controllers with a high squadron count that the A/F starts to stand out from the others... but then, it suffers other things for the sake of being pressed into the carrier role, and there's another carrier which has a more effective combination (why +1 blue die when you can have that squadron attacking twice?).

So yeah, I feel it's a problem when the weaknesses of a ship are patched by, "Well, let's take these other ships because they are more efficient, competitively."

18 minutes ago, Democratus said:

They have worked hard to bring the Victory back.

...I set out to make an article about how I feel the VSD hasn't really benefitted from all the things FFG has given it. Maybe I should finish it and post it, and we can debate that separately and I won't reactively jump at every opportunity in these threads.

TL:DR;IMO: None of the fixes offered by FFG have patched two shortcomings I see in the ship. Konstantine doesn't work for the first round of shooting where the VSD's front shields are blown off before you can affect the target's speed. Jerjerrod works to try turning the ship hard, but he doesn't win head-on fights and doesn't help the ship live long enough to use its battery repeatedly. Quad Battery Turrets is easily muted by big ships equalizing speed with the VSDs shooting at them. D-Caps is the only helpful gift given so far by making the VSD-II the hardest hitter at long range, preying on smaller ships, but Large ships can still absorb the blast and out-live the VSD in a firepower exchange. So why not just upgrade to a large ship so it can tank better and hit just as hard over several turns (and moreover, has better upgrade selections and a natural contain)?

FFG avoids enhancing the VSD's speed or giving it a little more robustness to live long enough to use the battery repeatedly. Evidently they have some other thoughts about this ship, or I'm hoping to play the VSD in a way the design team didn't intend (ie, as a generalist medium that can do many roles well, but not as exceptionally as the specialist ships).

4 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I set out to make an article about how I feel the VSD hasn't really benefitted from all the things FFG has given it. Maybe I should finish it and post it, and we can debate that separately and I won't reactively jump at every opportunity in these threads.

I’d love to debate this one. I run Three DCaps VSD2s and think it’s the best thing ever.

3 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I t's only when you want to take Rebel Flight Controllers with a high squadron count that the A/F starts to stand out from the others... but then, it suffers other things for the sake of being pressed into the carrier role, and there's another carrier which has a more effective combination (why +1 blue die when you can have that squadron attacking twice?).

.....

So why not just upgrade (the VSD) to a large ship so it can tank better and hit just as hard over several turns (and moreover, has better upgrade selections and a natural contain)?

My response to both of these points is "why not both?"

53 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Does cost count as a weakness? If not, ISD-II doesn’t have an obvious weakness.

If so... ISD-II anyway.

The ISD-2 is the Imperial Assault Frigate, a generalist that can work many angles in many situations and can easily be improved with upgrades into a certain role. The reason this is often ignored is that unlike the Assault Frigate in the awkward space of Medium ship, medium characteristics, the ISD is near best-in-class everywhere. That's the thing though, is that as a rule the ISD-2, especially now that the Quasar is here, can't be best-in-class and be cost effective. It can't do burst damage (anything with black dice here, but especially BE I-1s), it isn't the best Imperial carrier, either as a battle-carrier or pure carrier (I-1 and QF ) not because it can't be, but because the opportunity cost of doing so is so extremely high. In order for the ISD-2 to be cost effective, your fleet design has to allow it to make use of those overall characteristics (range, durability, etc.) because if you're only using one, there are other options for you that will work better. And at least in my experience, that's a lot harder than it sounds.

TL;DR Cost is definitely a weakness, and it's not so much an I-2's Achilles heel as it is an Achilles leg.

I tried to assault something with my Assault Frigate once.. or twice.. and it didn't seem to assault well... It plinked and died.

If it has Assault in the name it should be able to assault stuff.. without Mr. Ackbar's help.

The weakness of the MC30..... The XI7 Turbolaser.

For a ship with only 4 hull, but plenty of shields, and a pair of redirect tokens - a good volley with XI7s equipped can drill into that hull with spectacular results.

10 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

...I set out to make an article about how I feel the VSD hasn't really benefitted from all the things FFG has given it. Maybe I should finish it and post it, and we can debate that separately and I won't reactively jump at every opportunity in these threads.

TL:DR;IMO: None of the fixes offered by FFG have patched two shortcomings I see in the ship. Konstantine doesn't work for the first round of shooting where the VSD's front shields are blown off before you can affect the target's speed. Jerjerrod works to try turning the ship hard, but he doesn't win head-on fights and doesn't help the ship live long enough to use its battery repeatedly. Quad Battery Turrets is easily muted by big ships equalizing speed with the VSDs shooting at them. D-Caps is the only helpful gift given so far by making the VSD-II the hardest hitter at long range, preying on smaller ships, but Large ships can still absorb the blast and out-live the VSD in a firepower exchange. So why not just upgrade to a large ship so it can tank better and hit just as hard over several turns (and moreover, has better upgrade selections and a natural contain)?

FFG avoids enhancing the VSD's speed or giving it a little more robustness to live long enough to use the battery repeatedly. Evidently they have some other thoughts about this ship, or I'm hoping to play the VSD in a way the design team didn't intend (ie, as a generalist medium that can do many roles well, but not as exceptionally as the specialist ships).

I would be more than happy to see a longer post discussing this in more detail but from your presentation here, it sounds like two of these are not the fault of the VSD, and the third is a consequence of its design that isn't a weakness per se. (Obviously the aforementioned and the following are my opinion just as your quote is yours.) Konstantine is not the VSD's fault, that's the rules on K's card, and those go for any ship. The VSD is slightly more vulnerable to those effects than the ISD, but it's less susceptible than the notoriously squishy Quasar or the comparable but more expensive Interdictor , and really the ISD doesn't do a lot better itself.

Jerjerrod isn't to help the VSD win a straight jousting match, JJ allows the VSD to match up against faster/more agile opponents (CR90s, MC30s, Arquitens and Gladiator s) so that it can win not by outlasting them but keeping its weapons on target and giving the VSD a shot at winning by killing the other guy. He's not keeping the battery alive, he's keeping it relevant.

As far as QBT is concerned, are you running the VSDs at speed 2? From my experience (which is to say the other side of the table, though I occasionally fit QBT to my ISDs), the addition of QBT offers a choice. Either I match speed with you, which in most I face is speed 1, wherein I really can't evade that front arc JJ or not, or you get a free die on every shot, which you can use to tap LS, out of every arc at just over half the cost of Spinals. In other words, QBTs are great, but it sounds like the problem is rolling into the problem you identified with DCaps.

No, DCaps alone do not give a VSD-2 the capability to square off against, for example, Home One , and have a reasonable chance at walking away the winner. And it shouldn't. Said VSD is 88 points, Home One (sans the title) starts at 106. The VSD is a medium ship, and for that it faces design constraints that prevent it from entering the battleship class and leave it stuck at super-heavy cruiser when loaded to the gills. Which is the entire point of the VSD, it isn't a battleship, allowing you to field more of them. One of the biggest advantages I've seen DCaps give VSD skippers is the additional maneuver flexibility to hold a wider formation with the more ships their lower cost affords them, while still providing a larger crossfire zone than the Large formation or the VSD formation sans DCaps can provide.

I understand where you're coming from, but respectfully I must disagree. The VSD may not be the flashy super-ship of its larger sibling, but the addition of several upgrades (except Konstantine, who I agree is terrible*) have brought it fully into competitiveness in my view.

*IMO, Konstantine probably needs to stay being bad. As a jank list, it's whatever, but if it was genuinely Tier 1 competitive, or worse, Tier 1 and easy to use, it is a playstyle that when maximized would be absolutely zero fun to play against, as it is one of the only styles that removes a broad range of player choice from your opponent, rather than allowing it to be outflown or outfought.

23 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

The ISD-2 is the Imperial Assault Frigate, a generalist that can work many angles in many situations and can easily be improved with upgrades into a certain role. The reason this is often ignored is that unlike the Assault Frigate in the awkward space of Medium ship, medium characteristics, the ISD is near best-in-class everywhere. That's the thing though, is that as a rule the ISD-2, especially now that the Quasar is here, can't be best-in-class and be cost effective. It can't do burst damage (anything with black dice here, but especially BE I-1s), it isn't the best Imperial carrier, either as a battle-carrier or pure carrier (I-1 and QF ) not because it can't be, but because the opportunity cost of doing so is so extremely high. In order for the ISD-2 to be cost effective, your fleet design has to allow it to make use of those overall characteristics (range, durability, etc.) because if you're only using one, there are other options for you that will work better. And at least in my experience, that's a lot harder than it sounds.

TL;DR Cost is definitely a weakness, and it's not so much an I-2's Achilles heel as it is an Achilles leg.

These are all good points, and true ones. But overall this sounds a little bit like “The weakness is that it’s not the strongest in a specific area.” (Midrange skirmisher, maybe?) Being very good at everything with the same cost efficiency as the CR90 is, I think, a pretty amazing spot to be in. That said, I wasn’t being entirely serious originally; I believe risk is the weakness of ISDs in general. They represent a huge consolidation of points, and will cost you at least a third of your fleet when they go down.