Some of you have been testing on Vassal already, have there been any large scale findings you can hand out? :

Is the MC75 much more offensive for less defense? (It looks like it has a lot of offensive potential, 3 good arcs, 3 speed??). How does it compare to the MC80 (with ET)?

Is Strategic Adviser going to "break" medium and small ships? I can easily get my dual large lists out to 7 activations now. That's... more than even 2+4 Rieekan. (That's a good thing, but I'm not sure of the repercussions). Will we live in a large ships rule meta?

I'm very familiar with the differences - However, is there an ISD variant that is generally more used than the others? (Thinking Cymoon-long-range).

Are Bail and Pryce used COMMONLY or are they rather niche now that Strategic Adviser is a thing?

--

Lastly, is it ok if we use SAd for Strategic Adviser? Its too long to write out each time.

I have played a few games so far. Most a dual Cymoon Vader list with 2 floats, SA and EWS. In my experience its somewhat better. There is still an issue of padding your activations with Cheap flotillas and ews is okay but not great. SA is cool but most people I played had it as well so they would just do their SA when I used mine. Shrug, I think it is going to take time to see how things shape out.

Vader cymoon is amazing.

Unfortunately it's best with many activations and a bid.

So flotilla spam ftw in wave 7 too.

Two cymoons or just one?

Yeah are we up to like 7 activations nowadays?

25 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Two cymoons or just one?

Yeah are we up to like 7 activations nowadays?

You can? If they're good activations, yeah, I do 7 at times. Hammerheads make it easier to do. But you can do fine with 5, too. Or fake 5 with Strategic Adviser.

Ackbar Farm, which caused some consternation, was MC80 with 5 flotillas and a chunk of VCX+squads right?

I'll have to look at the data again to see if the data supports, but anecdotally, I'm seeing that winning fleets currently are predominantly 5 and 6. And that's still retaining the cognitive ability to understand that one can win with less, but that even a few results showing that doesn't weaken a trend.

Let's start our conversations earlier with data..

This piece is difficult to get a huge trend out of: Large ships and mediums are both represented, and do well.

However the two lines are the most promising. from 53% to 90% and from 22%! to 80%! for 3+ flotillas.

This graph is historically difficult to read: I believe it tracked about a 1 ship rise from like wave 2 to wave4. But from wave 4 to wave5 it was only like a .25 ship increase. Same here. We don't really know what this means... if its really just .25 of a ship, or something in an assumption that is incorrect. (A held notion, or in how the data is presented.)

It is also possible that average fleet size doesn't really go past 4-6, its just that more lists with 2+3 config or 1+4 or 2+4 show up in the winners tables.

This also means that since the avg is 5, and there are lists known for 6 ships, that there must also be some with 4, bringing the avg down to 5.

SAD artificially buffs up the activations on each large ship list by 1.

(@baltanok, how do you think you'll want to be tracking this in wave7? From my testing, SAD seems to work just like another activation/ship. If you wanted to go 1st with your large ship anyway, it wouldn't really matter if it was SAD or another flotilla).

(@baltanok, also, if you could add more options in the ship size table: fleets with 2+ larges, 2+ mediums, 2+ smalls/non-flots, 3+ smalls, 4+ smalls [this one I think went down], we might be able to glean more info?)

Anyway... that's a side topic.

Any other observations?

Are large ships very common now? (I think they should be...)

13 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Let's start our conversations earlier with data..

		All	Bottom 1/4	Top 1/2	Top 8	Top 4	Winners
Fleets Containing	Large Ships	54%			55%	41%	40%
	2+ Large	9%			8%	8%	0%
	Mediums	41%			38%	46%	50%
	2+ Mediums	11%			6%	5%	0%
	Flotillas	84%			93%	100%	100%
	2+ Flotillas	53%			69%	76%	90%
	3+ Flotillas	22%	0%	0%	42%	57%	80%

This piece is difficult to get a huge trend out of: Large ships and mediums are both represented, and do well.

However the two lines are the most promising. from 53% to 90% and from 22%! to 80%! for 3+ flotillas.

This graph is historically difficult to read: I believe it tracked about a 1 ship rise from like wave 2 to wave4. But from wave 4 to wave5 it was only like a .25 ship increase. Same here. We don't really know what this means... if its really just .25 of a ship, or something in an assumption that is incorrect. (A held notion, or in how the data is presented.)

It is also possible that average fleet size doesn't really go past 4-6, its just that more lists with 2+3 config or 1+4 or 2+4 show up in the winners tables.

This also means that since the avg is 5, and there are lists known for 6 ships, that there must also be some with 4, bringing the avg down to 5.

		All	Bottom 1/4	Top 1/2	Top 8	Top 4	Winners
Average Fleet Size	Combined	4.47			4.76	4.95	5.00
	Rebel	4.88			5.03	5.29	5.17
	Imperial	4.15			4.51	4.50	4.75

SAD artificially buffs up the activations on each large ship list by 1.

(@baltanok, how do you think you'll want to be tracking this in wave7? From my testing, SAD seems to work just like another activation/ship. If you wanted to go 1st with your large ship anyway, it wouldn't really matter if it was SAD or another flotilla).

(@baltanok, also, if you could add more options in the ship size table: fleets with 2+ larges, 2+ mediums, 2+ smalls/non-flots, 3+ smalls, 4+ smalls [this one I think went down], we might be able to glean more info?)

Sad: will probably make it an upgrade that is specifically tracked, like x17 or TRC. How to report is an open question at this point, but probably will have a calculated "activation" value.

Data presentation is something that needs to be overhauled. Short term, I can certainly add 2+ larges, and similar things.

For me personally I hope that whatever effect this next wave has, it gets rid of the Flotilla spamming. Don't get me wrong, I love my Flotilla, I call him Bob and he treats me well, but he is a lonesome fella that gets to travel with the capital ships, you know, the ones that this game is supposed to be about!

I understand meta and competitive play and how you use what works, what gets you the win, but this current "era" of Armada is super lame. I said it before on these forums but its boring to play, boring to play against, boring "as ****" to watch someone else play.... aka, its just boring. I'm not really a fan of Relay either, which kind of compounds the problem with flotillas by eliminating the core tactical purpose behind the whole game.. ranges, positioning, arches.... It reminds me of crap like TLT's in X-Wings where instead of having dog fights, its a game of Yahtzee where the only thing announcers can say after watching a world championship match was "he rolled really well, he deserves the win".

How do you track boredom in these statistics?

I think wave 7 is bringing a good deal of anti squad tech. Dunno if it will work yet.

but I see an exacerbation of activation control not a lessening of it. Turn based space chess is very much alive.

New ships are all large. Lots of mc75s and cymoons are being used on vassal atm.

I think this just means they are new....

Also are rebel large's really large ships?

i mean they have the same hull as an imperial medium (8) as opposed to an ISD size (11)

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

but I see an exacerbation of activation control not a lessening of it. Turn based space chess is very much alive.

Unfortunately I see it going this way as well. You know what I changed with my already fairly successful 2 ISD + 3 Gozanti build? I added SAd, so now it "has 6 activations".

Probably a little too soon to start taking bets concerning when FFG decides to make flotillas not count for tabling, but it's really the best solution anyone has thrown out to the current flotilla problem.

42 minutes ago, IronNerd said:

Unfortunately I see it going this way as well. You know what I changed with my already fairly successful 2 ISD + 3 Gozanti build? I added SAd, so now it "has 6 activations".

Probably a little too soon to start taking bets concerning when FFG decides to make flotillas not count for tabling, but it's really the best solution anyone has thrown out to the current flotilla problem.

Yeah. Idk what to do here either. I originally bought 2 flotillas, for fun. I now have 3 of each, after the whole git gud bs. I still use them very often.... very very often. (Unlike my 3 Nebulons, which underwhelm me every time except for a singleton Yavaris. Salvation is... okay. )

I just wish it was less about activation order, activation control and more pew pew, lining up double arc shots, movements. yknow, ship things.

26 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Yeah. Idk what to do here either. I originally bought 2 flotillas, for fun. I now have 3 of each, after the whole git gud bs. I still use them very often.... very very often. (Unlike my 3 Nebulons, which underwhelm me every time except for a singleton Yavaris. Salvation is... okay. )

I just wish it was less about activation order, activation control and more pew pew, lining up double arc shots, movements. yknow, ship things.

How do you plan on lining up those double arc shots without any form of activation control/order?

9 minutes ago, MandalorianMoose said:

How do you plan on lining up those double arc shots without any form of activation control/order?

In an ideal world and an ideal game, I move my ship towards your ship through the air while making pew pew noises with my mouth. We roll some marbles to check who gets heads and who gets blown up. Write a narrative about it. And get tucked in to bed before 9.

5 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

In an ideal world and an ideal game, I move my ship towards your ship through the air while making pew pew noises with my mouth. We roll some marbles to check who gets heads and who gets blown up. Write a narrative about it. And get tucked in to bed before 9.

Ok, but in what order? Who moves when? When do we shoot? Do I have to let your ships come towards mine or can I try to evade them?

The game already has a great rule set that explains how all these things work, I guess I just don’t understand what you are asking for to be different

11 minutes ago, MandalorianMoose said:

Ok, but in what order? Who moves when? When do we shoot? Do I have to let your ships come towards mine or can I try to evade them?

The game already has a great rule set that explains how all these things work, I guess I just don’t understand what you are asking for to be different

Sorry, I was having a bit of fun.

Nah, I don't like how much movement order has an effect on this game. Especially since, its not like things move in turns in a space battle anyway. Apparently, that's a deeply incredibly controversial opinion that one could possibly have about this game.

I'm not sure how to solve it.

The problem is that there isn't an ideal way to make simultaneous action abstract. There are several different systems out there, Alternating Activations is what they went with for Armada. The problem that crops up with EVERY game that uses Alternating Activations is that someone will spam the cheapest thing possible to get an advantage. I'm told that Malifaux had to make a serious errata because of the "Rat Factory" problem where certain factions could simply spam super cheap rats to abuse the system. IGoUGo wouldn't work well with the way Armada is currently written... plus, I tend to dislike those systems anyway (if you've played a game of 40k in the last 15 years, you know the roll for first turn straight decides some games). Infinity has an interesting approach with reactions, but that game is (IMO) overly complex and I really don't know how you'd add that to Armada. FFG is taking an interesting approach with Legion and its Semi-Random Activations, but I'm skeptical that will work crazy well.

All that sort-of-on-topic stuff aside, the release of the flotilla made it easy to game the Alternating Activation system by providing stupid cheap options. This is how Alternating Activation systems get broken. We want it to be un-broken... somehow.

7 minutes ago, IronNerd said:

The problem is that there isn't an ideal way to make simultaneous action abstract. There are several different systems out there, Alternating Activations is what they went with for Armada. The problem that crops up with EVERY game that uses Alternating Activations is that someone will spam the cheapest thing possible to get an advantage. I'm told that Malifaux had to make a serious errata because of the "Rat Factory" problem where certain factions could simply spam super cheap rats to abuse the system. IGoUGo wouldn't work well with the way Armada is currently written... plus, I tend to dislike those systems anyway (if you've played a game of 40k in the last 15 years, you know the roll for first turn straight decides some games). Infinity has an interesting approach with reactions, but that game is (IMO) overly complex and I really don't know how you'd add that to Armada. FFG is taking an interesting approach with Legion and its Semi-Random Activations, but I'm skeptical that will work crazy well.

All that sort-of-on-topic stuff aside, the release of the flotilla made it easy to game the Alternating Activation system by providing stupid cheap options. This is how Alternating Activation systems get broken. We want it to be un-broken... somehow.

That's why Xwing's PS system was so innovative and fun. Even if it did have some very obvious problems: The cost of each bump in PS was never as simple as 1 for 1, which they hoped it would be. At times highest PS also was really too strong, at times (beginning of game), low PS swarm was very good, mid PS was really bad until they started making some extremely good abilities, but sometimes that can easily go too far.

Apparently this is an extremely contentious opinion.

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Let's start our conversations earlier with data..

(@baltanok, also, if you could add more options in the ship size table: fleets with 2+ larges, 2+ mediums, 2+ smalls/non-flots, 3+ smalls, 4+ smalls [this one I think went down], we might be able to glean more info?)

OK, haven't put it into the spreadsheet because of all the things that I need to fix as a higher priority, but I did gather the info using the filters: (smalls = non-flot)

2+L: 18/6/3/0

2+M: 23/5/3/0

2+S: 88/32/12/2

3+S: 51/17/7/1

4+S: 30/10/5/1

5+S: 15/5/2/0

Balanced: 68/30/16/5 (non-yavaris, 1 or fewer of each size)

Bal/Yav: 10/8/5/4 (Balanced, but including yavaris)

I'll leave percentages as an exercise for the reader, as I have to fetch dinner for my exhausted wife. But overall, these numbers seem reasonably balanced, excluding Yavaris.

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Sorry, I was having a bit of fun.

Nah, I don't like how much movement order has an effect on this game. Especially since, its not like things move in turns in a space battle anyway. Apparently, that's a deeply incredibly controversial opinion that one could possibly have about this game.

I'm not sure how to solve it.

Alternating activations work brilliantly to simulate attrition, if you have enough units. While I don't mind it with squadron activation, I wish FFG had built in a weighted mechanic based on ship command value.

No lie, the simplest and most useful thing they could do to counter activation spam would be to move to something like the X-Wing system at least for combat. The decision to have things move in the existing manner is not a bad idea, but the decision to make ships shoot prior to moving gives spam fleets a consistent edge when it comes to ship-on-ship combat by letting them wait out their target beyond threat range. As a person who abuses this tactic mercilessly (seriously my fleets in the Vassal tournaments right now have a combined point bid of 76) I actually think very much that the last-first tactic is ultimately a detriment to the game and forces players to choose between going first or winning the objective.

In an Armada 2.0, I'd hope they work to resolve this so that activation order of any sort doesn't automatically prevent ships from shooting at each other by default. Yes, it could make large ships more powerful - but shouldn't that be the case anyway given the point investment?

My goal would be to accomplish the following:

1. Keep the excellent Command system in place
2. Keep the excellent maneuver system in place
3. Redesign the shooting system so that all ships and squadrons shoot together
4. Keep as much of the current objective system as can be maintained with the above goals
5. Redesign the fewest number of cards possible to maintain game balance

What this might look like in practice:

Each player has 3 ships: Player 1 has a Gozanti flotilla, Demolisher, and an Imperial Star Destroyer. Player 2 has a CR90, a Nebulon-B cruiser, and an MC80 Home 1, as well as a small handful of X-Wings.

We assign ships initial values based on their command values plus base size (+0 for flotillas, +1 for small bases, +2 for medium bases, +3 for Large bases). In this case, we have the Gozanti (1), Gladiator (3), and ISD (6) vs the CR90 (2), Nebulon (3) and MC80H1 (6). The X-Wings don't have initiative, they'll move after all ships as they do now. The first player is the Imperials.

Instead of the usual back and forth, we have the faster, quicker small ships making their decisions first exactly like low PS ships in X-Wing. The Gozanti will go first, which befits its typical fleet role as a support vessel for other ships in the fleet. It reveals its command and makes a maneuver. The next ship to go will be the CR90, which is a small based ship with command 1. When the next round goes, Demolisher will make its usual two attacks but one of them will be before all other ship attacks in the shooting phase. Demolisher moves to sit in wait for the Nebulon-B. The Nebulon reveals a squadron command and moves into range of Demolisher, but avoids the double arc. The X-Wings will move during their own phase. Finally, the two large ships move. The ISD goes first, and positions to maximize their coverage of the end position of the MC80 and also the Nebulon-B at long range. The MC80 moves to double arc the ISD. Finally, the X-Wings are moved to position, alternating as appropriate with opposing forces. The squadrons do not flip their activation sliders, but may only move once each.

Just like in X-Wing, the ships and squadrons are now going to go in reverse order, with the exception that the squadrons will shoot last unless they have been activated by ships. Also, just like in regular Armada, a squadron that moved without a ship command cannot also attack unless it has the Rogue keyword. Here's what's going to happen:

As the opening of the shooting phase, Demolisher takes its first shot out the side into the Nebulon-B, an early hit for the Imperials. Then the ships continue in normal order.

Player 1, having initiative, will shoot with his highest command ship. The Star Destroyer will shoot at its two targets. The MC80 will retaliate, causing damage via return fire.

When the Nebulon-B goes, it will choose a number of squadrons equal to its squadron command (plus any bonuses for tokens etc) and those squadrons may immediately attack the nearest ship or squadron as normal and flip to deactivated. Note that this means that squadrons attacking from high initiative carriers (ISDs, MC80s, etc) have an inherent ability to go first compared to lower initiative ships like a Gozanti or GR-75. Then the ship itself attacks as normal. This resets the priority towards dedicated large and medium carriers like the Quasar, VSD, ISD, MC80, Assault Frigate, etc. and away from lower quality carriers like the flotillas. It also decreases the power of some of those smaller carriers by making them go after

After all ships have attacked, squadrons that are able to may then attack if they weren't activated by ships. This will alternate back and forth as normal in the existing system, 2 squads at a time for each side.

What we've done with this change:

1. Maintained the existing command system, almost in its entirety
2. Maintained the maneuver system as it exists while reducing the effects of activation advantage
3. Made it so that all combat ships in range and firing arc of an enemy ship can fight each round
4. Largely kept all cards relevant, changing only the necessary trigger timing for some cards
5. Reduced the power of flotilla spam
6. Increased the utility of large multirole ships to be commensurate with their costs
7. Reduced the defensive power of massed squadron fleets by forcing them to stay in place while waiting to attack enemy ships and squadrons, exposing them to counterplay and ship defenses
8. Increased the viability of ships at most range bands

54 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Alternating activations work brilliantly to simulate attrition, if you have enough units. While I don't mind it with squadron activation, I wish FFG had built in a weighted mechanic based on ship command value.

Same. I don't mind it at all for squadrons, its just easier. But for ships.... Wish there was something better.