I've been considering the mechanics of Armada pretty heavily lately due to a Genesys RPG I'm blending with X-wing and Armada. As a result I'm left wondering how certain mechanics didn't end up more unified.

Consider this, when a player spends a command dial, each dial has a specific way to resolve.

For instance, the engineering dial grants points based on a numeric value printed on each card, and then has a static set of functions those points can be used for. Yet when a concentrate fire dial is resolved it has a static effect of "Add one attack die to the attack pool. That die must be of a color that is already in the attack pool." The Navigate command follows suit in that when resolved it grants static effects, but the Squadron command seems closer to the Engineering command's design as it uses a numeric value printed on each card to determine the effect.

This left me to wonder, why? And more importantly, is there a way to unify commands?


I suppose when it comes down to it I may never know the "why". There are no rules to making your own game, nothing says everything has to be unified, and I supposed at the end of the day, these systems do function. But I am still curious. Maybe at one point all the command ran off the same design, and they later decided it wasn't right, maybe they were always designed to be different.

I think had I designed the game I may have tried to mirror all the commands off the Engineering command's design. The way it works has the most appeal to me, as I feel like it's the least restricted.

Something like this:

Engineering Dial : Gain engineering points equal to the ship’s engineering value and spend them on the following repair effects.

- Move Shields : Spend one point to move one shield by reducing one of the ship’s hull zone’s shield dials by one and then increasing another of its hull zone’s shields by one (without exceeding its maximum shield value).

- Recover Shields : Spend two points to recover one shield on any of the ship’s hull zones (without exceeding its maximum shield value).

- Repair Hull : Spend three points to choose and discard one of the ship’s faceup or facedown damage cards

Concentrate Fire Dial : Gain command points equal to the ship’s command value and spend them on the following concentrate fire effects.

- Add a die : Spend two points to add one attack die to the attack pool. That die must be of a color that is already in the attack pool.

- Reroll a die : Spend one point to reroll one attack die in the attack pool.

Navigate Dial : Gain navigate points equal to the ship’s navigation value and spend them on the following navigate effects.

- Change speed : Spend one point to increase or decrease the ship’s speed by one.

- Add yaw : Spend two points to increase the yaw value of one joint by one for this maneuver.

Squadron Dial : Gain squadron points equal to the ship’s squadron value and spend them on the following squadron effects.

- Attack or move : Spend one point to activate one squadron, that squad may attack or move when activated.

- Attack and move : Spend two points to activate one squadron, that squadron may attack and move when activated.



Anyone have any thoughts on this, or am I just going nuts?

28 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Attack  or move : Spend one point to activate one  squadron  , that squ  ad may attack and move when activated. 

::twitch::

?

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

::twitch::

?

Good catch, fixed! lol

I don't think command value is a good metric for determining how many "points" concentrate fire or nav should have to pull from. What happens to an MC30 if it can't yaw and change speed on a native dial? What about all command 1 ships that wouldn't be able to add yaw PERIOD. I know that's nitpicky, but really it would mean that each ship would have to have engineer points, nav points, firepower points, and squad points, and then those numbers would have to be added into the soup when balancing things out.

IMO having CF and NAV as "fixed" balance points help to make sure that no ship is too powerful or too unmaneuverable.

I see what you are getting at, I just think this is one of those things that opens a can of worms down a rabbit hole to a whole rats nest of other balance problems.

58 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

For instance, the engineering dial grants points based on a numeric value printed on each card, and then has a static set of functions those points can be used for. Yet when a concentrate fire dial is resolved it has a static effect of "Add one attack die to the attack pool. That die must be of a color that is already in the attack pool." The Navigate command follows suit in that when resolved it grants static effects, but the Squadron command seems closer to the Engineering command's design as it uses a numeric value printed on each card to determine the effect.

This left me to wonder, why?

1. Some things scale with ship size to make big ships strong, some things scale with ship count to make small ships strong.

2. Engineering and Squadron commands resolve immediately (sans Flight Commander), interacting with a relatively small number of other effects (besides those that directly affect the dial itself, like EHBs increasing the number of squads the dial can activate).

Navigate, and especially Concentrate Fire, trigger later in the round, and interact with a wider range of non-dial-specific effects. For Nav, you've got all the possible maneuvers available with the yaw values at your present speed, plus at any speed you can change to, plus possible engine techs; weighed against anything you want to fly around, where you want to land, what speed you want to be at for the next turn, and so on; massively inflating the decision-space. ConFire triggers on one of two possible attacks (potentially subdivided into lots of small attacks), each of which can have any number of upgrade or objective modifications, and that's after targeting priority and measuring steps, and don't forget exactly how many points this ship gets while you're making your targeting decisions!

By contrast, engineering and squadron dials are really... simple. The squadron play itself can be very deep, and the ramifications of your decisions with either dial can be game-changing, but there's not a whole lot of variables to consider in resolving the dial itself. Repair a damage card, or a shield or two? Activate this squadron, or that one? Since they're already so simple, breaking them down into a by-chassis points-driven distinction doesn't stress the game system too much. But if you have to take the already often-lengthy process of deciding what maneuver to take, and then accounting for, ex:, the added possibilities created by giving up your dial's speed change for a second yaw or giving up your yaw for 2 extra speed changes, the number of possible decisions increases dramatically. A CR90 with ETs, that can dial+token to change speed from 0-4 or boost yaw by two, has a lot of potential pre-measuring.

3. The strength of a ship's attacks, and the speed/maneuverability it has, are already nuanced on a per-chassis basis. The benefits of an additional dice or yaw may be flat, but the values you're adding that dice/yaw to are not. Squad and Engineering dials don't interact with anything beyond the numbers on the ship card - make those dial effects flat, and there's no longer anything differentiating one ship using them from another.

30 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

I don't think command value is a good metric for determining how many "points" concentrate fire or nav should have to pull from. What happens to an MC30 if it can't yaw and change speed on a native dial? What about all command 1 ships that wouldn't be able to add yaw PERIOD. I know that's nitpicky, but really it would mean that each ship would have to have engineer points, nav points, firepower points, and squad points, and then those numbers would have to be added into the soup when balancing things out.

IMO having CF and NAV as "fixed" balance points help to make sure that no ship is too powerful or too unmaneuverable.

I see what you are getting at, I just think this is one of those things that opens a can of worms down a rabbit hole to a whole rats nest of other balance problems.

Not to imply any of the current values would still apply, just that they would feed off a value.

21 minutes ago, svelok said:

1. Some things scale with ship size to make big ships strong, some things scale with ship count to make small ships strong.

2. Engineering and Squadron commands resolve immediately (sans Flight Commander), interacting with a relatively small number of other effects (besides those that directly affect the dial itself, like EHBs increasing the number of squads the dial can activate).

Navigate, and especially Concentrate Fire, trigger later in the round, and interact with a wider range of non-dial-specific effects. For Nav, you've got all the possible maneuvers available with the yaw values at your present speed, plus at any speed you can change to, plus possible engine techs; weighed against anything you want to fly around, where you want to land, what speed you want to be at for the next turn, and so on; massively inflating the decision-space. ConFire triggers on one of two possible attacks (potentially subdivided into lots of small attacks), each of which can have any number of upgrade or objective modifications, and that's after targeting priority and measuring steps, and don't forget exactly how many points this ship gets while you're making your targeting decisions!

By contrast, engineering and squadron dials are really... simple. The squadron play itself can be very deep, and the ramifications of your decisions with either dial can be game-changing, but there's not a whole lot of variables to consider in resolving the dial itself. Repair a damage card, or a shield or two? Activate this squadron, or that one? Since they're already so simple, breaking them down into a by-chassis points-driven distinction doesn't stress the game system too much. But if you have to take the already often-lengthy process of deciding what maneuver to take, and then accounting for, ex:, the added possibilities created by giving up your dial's speed change for a second yaw or giving up your yaw for 2 extra speed changes, the number of possible decisions increases dramatically. A CR90 with ETs, that can dial+token to change speed from 0-4 or boost yaw by two, has a lot of potential pre-measuring.

3. The strength of a ship's attacks, and the speed/maneuverability it has, are already nuanced on a per-chassis basis. The benefits of an additional dice or yaw may be flat, but the values you're adding that dice/yaw to are not. Squad and Engineering dials don't interact with anything beyond the numbers on the ship card - make those dial effects flat, and there's no longer anything differentiating one ship using them from another.

Wow, this is really well thought out. Yeah, definitely some excellent points here man, thanks!

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

This left me to wonder, why?

I think it's because navigation and CF already have differentiated stats on each ship.

Yes, the benefit is the same for everyone but not everyone can do the same cause both sums to the native maneuver chart and battery armaments.

Squadron and engineering need stats on each ship and ffg just give them numbers.

Give numbers to CF and navigate seem redundant when you already have maneuver charts and batteries.

4 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I think it's because navigation and CF already have differentiated stats on each ship.

Yes, the benefit is the same for everyone but not everyone can do the same cause both sums to the native maneuver chart and battery armaments.

Squadron and engineering need stats on each ship and ffg just give them numbers.

Give numbers to CF and navigate seem redundant when you already have maneuver charts and batteries.

That's a good point too. Maybe I'm trying to think with too much symmetry.

There are some good ideas here that would totally change the way the game works, but wouldn't necessarily break the game. First, one thing that has always bothered me is how the repair token is half the value rounded up, while squadron is just a +1 value. It seems to me that this is almost the first indication that FFG had that squadrons were really powerful... But that's not the point of this discussion.

CF dial - I like your 2 points adds a die, 1 point rerolls. A standard ship could have a CF value of 2 (perhaps it's called something like "mobile turrets" or something), allowing it to function very similarly. However, things like the Gozanti could be dropped down to 1, preventing the entire "okay, I'm doubling my attack dice now such that my 23pt flotilla is throwing more dice out of its side arc than my 44pt Raider I at medium range" issue (though it's really not an issue, but still, fluff wise it doesn't make sense). It would also allow for a bit of a different approach. You wouldn't have to put OEs on Demo - you could rely on your CF dial to reroll 2 dice when you don't get a native crit, except then you don't have the dial for a navigate. Herm... CHOICES! Choices are always good imo. And finally, it would allow for large ships to get more use out of a CF dial. You could put them up to a value of 3, allowing them to get a die and a reroll, 3 rerolls, or combine it with a token for 2 extra dice and a reroll! Now all of a sudden it's a dial highly worth considering.

Navigate - I don't know how to handle this one. Off the top of my head, I would say just make the default value 3, say yaw = 2pts, and speed = 1pt, but also say that you cannot do more than 1 of the same thing. So a standard ship can still yaw+speed, Ozzel allows for you to ignore the "can't change speed by more than 1"... But it doesn't come out nice. I would have to break protocol and say that you round down for the token in this case. It would mean that ships with a value of 2 still get use out of the token, ships with 4 could actually use the token for a yaw value, and ships with a value 1 (*cough* VSD) don't get any benefit from storing the token. I don't know how I feel about this, but the other option would be to allow a token to add a yaw, or make the default point 2 pts, and a dial can't change speed and yaw (though if I did this, I probably would allow you to spend both on speed). Actually, that's probably the better way to do it. Make the default value 2 points, make yaw = 2 pts, and speed change = 1 point. Then you can have shifty ships like the CR90 have a value of 3, allowing them to slam the brakes, hit the gas, or crank the wheel along with one of those others.... But most ships have the choice of changing speed (given they could change by 2) or adding a yaw. It would also mean that crafty ships could store a token to add a click, that'd be nice. And clunky ships would need a dial and a token to add a yaw.

Squadrons - I've always felt that the token should be half value like engineering. But we all know that this would be super powerful, especially with some of those stacking abilities would be even more "broken." But that's not a technical failure of the game, just a costing failure of the game. So power creep ignored, that would be my preferred method of token handling. I like your idea of having move & attack as separate costs, but I don't know in practice how well it would work. It would mean that values would be higher (Quasar could be at 6 by default for example), and perhaps it should be 2 points to attack, 1 point to move, so if you're already engaged, you're not doubling the number of squadrons you're activating for attack. And then in our example Quasar could be at 10 or something like that. You could also adjust those combo abilities to consume points... Flight Controllers could add a blue at the cost of a squadron point, so you can make your attacks more powerful, but have fewer of them. Which would again add choices to the game.

Engineering - This already does all of the above, no need to change it.

6 minutes ago, Khyros said:

There are some good ideas here that would totally change the way the game works, but wouldn't necessarily break the game. First, one thing that has always bothered me is how the repair token is half the value rounded up, while squadron is just a +1 value. It seems to me that this is almost the first indication that FFG had that squadrons were really powerful... But that's not the point of this discussion.

CF dial - I like your 2 points adds a die, 1 point rerolls. A standard ship could have a CF value of 2 (perhaps it's called something like "mobile turrets" or something), allowing it to function very similarly. However, things like the Gozanti could be dropped down to 1, preventing the entire "okay, I'm doubling my attack dice now such that my 23pt flotilla is throwing more dice out of its side arc than my 44pt Raider I at medium range" issue (though it's really not an issue, but still, fluff wise it doesn't make sense). It would also allow for a bit of a different approach. You wouldn't have to put OEs on Demo - you could rely on your CF dial to reroll 2 dice when you don't get a native crit, except then you don't have the dial for a navigate. Herm... CHOICES! Choices are always good imo. And finally, it would allow for large ships to get more use out of a CF dial. You could put them up to a value of 3, allowing them to get a die and a reroll, 3 rerolls, or combine it with a token for 2 extra dice and a reroll! Now all of a sudden it's a dial highly worth considering.

Navigate - I don't know how to handle this one. Off the top of my head, I would say just make the default value 3, say yaw = 2pts, and speed = 1pt, but also say that you cannot do more than 1 of the same thing. So a standard ship can still yaw+speed, Ozzel allows for you to ignore the "can't change speed by more than 1"... But it doesn't come out nice. I would have to break protocol and say that you round down for the token in this case. It would mean that ships with a value of 2 still get use out of the token, ships with 4 could actually use the token for a yaw value, and ships with a value 1 (*cough* VSD) don't get any benefit from storing the token. I don't know how I feel about this, but the other option would be to allow a token to add a yaw, or make the default point 2 pts, and a dial can't change speed and yaw (though if I did this, I probably would allow you to spend both on speed). Actually, that's probably the better way to do it. Make the default value 2 points, make yaw = 2 pts, and speed change = 1 point. Then you can have shifty ships like the CR90 have a value of 3, allowing them to slam the brakes, hit the gas, or crank the wheel along with one of those others.... But most ships have the choice of changing speed (given they could change by 2) or adding a yaw. It would also mean that crafty ships could store a token to add a click, that'd be nice. And clunky ships would need a dial and a token to add a yaw.

Squadrons - I've always felt that the token should be half value like engineering. But we all know that this would be super powerful, especially with some of those stacking abilities would be even more "broken." But that's not a technical failure of the game, just a costing failure of the game. So power creep ignored, that would be my preferred method of token handling. I like your idea of having move & attack as separate costs, but I don't know in practice how well it would work. It would mean that values would be higher (Quasar could be at 6 by default for example), and perhaps it should be 2 points to attack, 1 point to move, so if you're already engaged, you're not doubling the number of squadrons you're activating for attack. And then in our example Quasar could be at 10 or something like that. You could also adjust those combo abilities to consume points... Flight Controllers could add a blue at the cost of a squadron point, so you can make your attacks more powerful, but have fewer of them. Which would again add choices to the game.

Engineering - This already does all of the above, no need to change it.

It did seem interesting to me to have some slightly less constrained options in terms of commands, but it does appear that added an mechanic for each command to mirror the engineering mechanic would create balance issues and make the game a little more complicated.

Still, I'd be interested to see how such a system worked.

This is slightly off topic to your solution...

However, I both adore and loath the command mechanic. Its very unusual.

I love that its an innovative feature that is both a blessing and a curse: Having more command means saving more tokens (amazing versatility), yet having more commands also means you have to plan farther in advance, which is up to player skill (or SFO if you have none) to mitigate.

Where it breaks down though is again my expectation I got from the the advertising. The advertising made it seem like a huge deal for you to prepare your ship for the correct actions and that the command chain inside a large ship is huge and sprawling and involved lots of people running around. In practice, it became, oh... I know in 2 turns I probably will be close to the map edge or have passed combat, let's put a navigate in there. So boring!

Where it would have been a lot more immersive is if you had to do certain ambiguous steps to lead up activating a command.

Say like: turn 1 - routing power FROM shields (... to where??? not stated)
turn 2 - Navigate command, change speed by 2!

The command mechanic really doesn't deliver on flavor, even though it has the right theme and is very well designed.

4 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

This is slightly off topic to your solution...

However, I both adore and loath the command mechanic. Its very unusual.

I love that its an innovative feature that is both a blessing and a curse: Having more command means saving more tokens (amazing versatility), yet having more commands also means you have to plan farther in advance, which is up to player skill (or SFO if you have none) to mitigate.

Where it breaks down though is again my expectation I got from the the advertising. The advertising made it seem like a huge deal for you to prepare your ship for the correct actions and that the command chain inside a large ship is huge and sprawling and involved lots of people running around. In practice, it became, oh... I know in 2 turns I probably will be close to the map edge or have passed combat, let's put a navigate in there. So boring!

Where it would have been a lot more immersive is if you had to do certain ambiguous steps to lead up activating a command.

Say like: turn 1 - routing power FROM shields (... to where??? not stated)
turn 2 - Navigate command, change speed by 2!

The command mechanic really doesn't deliver on flavor, even though it has the right theme and is very well designed.

Hmmmmm an interesting point. I guess it would be neat to see a more specific command set.

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

Hmmmmm an interesting point. I guess it would be neat to see a more specific command set.

Well.I'm just suggesting that there are these trade-off pre-steps to activating a command (or maybe making it more powerful). While essentially keeping the same 4 commands.

ex. turn 1, Navigate command (low effect, not pre-stepped), pre-step: Open hangar doors.
turn 2, Squadron command (enhanced by pre-step)=RLB drop and command 4 squadrons, pre-step: route energy from shields. (lose 1 extra shield if attacked this turn).
Turn 3, Conc fire command (enhanced by pre-step)=add 2 dice.

Something like that. We do have that kind of right now with tokens combining into a dial command... anyway. It just seems... too tame for what I imagined as a logistical nightmare. Even the times when I was learning how to sail a tiny sailboat, we had a step procedure for cutting across the wind direction (the boom swings across the ship sometimes rather violently). Call to everyone to duck. Verify duck. Adjust the slack to prep for swing. Turn rudder. (Boom swings across). Tighten slack.

And this is a 3 person sailboat....

I've thought there should be changes to the CF command for a while and I like your ideas revolving around the command stat. there's no nav stat currently and I don't love your squadron idea but, considering none of this will ever happen because armada is dead ;), it's all fine, everything is fine with it.

I kinda wish concentrate fire would have different effects for different base sizes. Normal effect for smalls. Maybe 2 dice or free rerolls for mediums. Larges get medium effect and a free anti squadron attack.

Same mechanic I came up with at the games release? Sure. We're not the only ones either, enjoy the sandbox!

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Well.I'm just suggesting that there are these trade-off pre-steps to activating a command (or maybe making it more powerful). While essentially keeping the same 4 commands.

ex. turn 1, Navigate command (low effect, not pre-stepped), pre-step: Open hangar doors.
turn 2, Squadron command (enhanced by pre-step)=RLB drop and command 4 squadrons, pre-step: route energy from shields. (lose 1 extra shield if attacked this turn).
Turn 3, Conc fire command (enhanced by pre-step)=add 2 dice.

Something like that. We do have that kind of right now with tokens combining into a dial command... anyway. It just seems... too tame for what I imagined as a logistical nightmare. Even the times when I was learning how to sail a tiny sailboat, we had a step procedure for cutting across the wind direction (the boom swings across the ship sometimes rather violently). Call to everyone to duck. Verify duck. Adjust the slack to prep for swing. Turn rudder. (Boom swings across). Tighten slack.

And this is a 3 person sailboat....

Lightning? I sail an ancient wood one from time to time.

The staging effects you propose are interesting, I guess, but why would you ever stage something wrongly? Like, I don’t understand how that adds decision points, all you’re doing is enhancing the complexity of the command system without getting any corresponding payoff in game depth...

12 hours ago, dominosfleet said:

there's no nav stat currently

What is the nav chart then?

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

What is the nav chart then?

Minecraft pixel-art of different mountains.

=D