4 hours ago, Rocmistro said:

Which side of the discussion is this meant to support, Gink?

Because in both of those instances, the Hyperspaced-in ship will not be going first (ie, there's a chance for the opposing player to first move his ship that would otherwise be getting nailed in the tukus), which still potentially presents the chase problem for the Hyperspacing-in player.

Deploy an mc30 from hyperspace in the rear of an enemy ship. Nomatter where they go they wont be able to escape.

Umm...If they are going faster than speed 1, yes, they escape.

5 minutes ago, Rocmistro said:

Umm...If they are going faster than speed 1, yes, they escape.

Have you read the opening post?

4 hours ago, Rocmistro said:

I don't ever want to become a curmudgeony "Get off my lawn" / Gatekeeper type, but if (and I sincerely stress the *IF*) that's a change your actually arguing for, I would oppose it vehemently.

You are correct, I wasn't arguing for that, I was just suggesting that's the sort of change that would need to be made to clear this problem up.

I figure the proportion of times the rule gets invoked by chasing ships vs some "abuse" of it would be lopsided. Imagine a fleet of 3 or 4 MC30s led by Madine. It kind makes them all have a demo like ability, not because they are chasing, but because they are curling around to the rear of all their targets. I dunno if this is really the intended effect of the rule, is it?

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Have you read the opening post?

Yes. I don't understand the relevance, which is why, 2 posts ago, I asked what argument you were attempting to support with the Raddus/Hyperspace Assault illustration. I'm not trolling you here, Gink, I just really don't understand what you're trying to say.

3 minutes ago, homedrone said:

You are correct, I wasn't arguing for that, I was just suggesting that's the sort of change that would need to be made to clear this problem up.

I figure the proportion of times the rule gets invoked by chasing ships vs some "abuse" of it would be lopsided. Imagine a fleet of 3 or 4 MC30s led by Madine. It kind makes them all have a demo like ability, not because they are chasing, but because they are curling around to the rear of all their targets. I dunno if this is really the intended effect of the rule, is it?

Yes, hence why I don't support any of the proposed changes (notwithstanding, I don't agree with the OP's original argument which is that this game result is actually a problem).

You might as well just rename the game to "CR90w/EngineTechs-mada"

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 5:00 AM, Ardaedhel said:

...but this specific thing is the biggest gripe I've had with Armada's mechanics since I started playing. Pursuit doesn't work, and that's dumb.

Waitwhat?!

I mean, the IGO-UGO system is the source of a lot of flaws, but not sure shoot-then-move is part of it. Some kind of impulse movement would be a better fix, but I digress, the point overall, though is...

Pursuit shouldn't be desirable.

Naval battles aren't dogfights. Historically, pursuit battles are losses for the pursuer UNLESS they are faster than their prey. And that's the key - you have to be able to overtake them, as nominally a pursuit position...in naval combat...is a disadvantaged position. It's why Armored Cruisers were created at all, and then morphed into battlecruisers - the entire concept of having a battleship-sized (and battleship-priced!) ship that couldn't fight against battleships as it lacked the armor...but had higher speeds, with the intent of just avoiding combat and/or forcing combat on slower and weaker units. The historical design axiom of specific ship classes that could 'outrun anything they can't outfight'.

Nonono, this specific thing is definitely not a problem with Armada - being in pursuit is SUPPOSED to be a bad place to be.

...of course, that's another thing you could argue as weirdness in the game, to effectively have only 3 ship speeds at all. That lack of variety causes no small amount of problems.

If you made speed 0 viable (IE., could deploy at it, didn't lose defense tokens at it, and even allow some slight heading changes) then it would be practical to have ships that only have a max speed of '1' (*cough* Super Star Destroyer). As it is, literally every ship in the game has a max speed of 2, 3, or 4 - with the vast majority using the same speed of '3' - which results in a lack of precision that creates the impression of problems, here. IE., too many things are 'the same speed', when there should be more variety.

(That said, per previous point - you put two naval ships in battle that do have the same speed...the pursuer isn't going to win that fight. But rarely do naval ships have the same speed, while in this game it's common...indeed almost the default.)

3 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Waitwhat?!

I mean, the IGO-UGO system is the source of a lot of flaws, but not sure shoot-then-move is part of it. Some kind of impulse movement would be a better fix, but I digress, the point overall, though is...

Pursuit shouldn't be desirable.

Naval battles aren't dogfights. Historically, pursuit battles are losses for the pursuer UNLESS they are faster than their prey. And that's the key - you have to be able to overtake them, as nominally a pursuit position...in naval combat...is a disadvantaged position. It's why Armored Cruisers were created at all, and then morphed into battlecruisers - the entire concept of having a battleship-sized (and battleship-priced!) ship that couldn't fight against battleships as it lacked the armor...but had higher speeds, with the intent of just avoiding combat and/or forcing combat on slower and weaker units. The historical design axiom of specific ship classes that could 'outrun anything they can't outfight'.

Nonono, this specific thing is definitely not a problem with Armada - being in pursuit is SUPPOSED to be a bad place to be.

But in Armada, even if you overtake your prey, if you're not first player/outactivate your opponent, even with a ship that could arguably be classified as a pursuer (i.e.: a MC30), there's hardly any way to inflict significant damage on your prey. The only way to sort of do it is to end your movement on the sides/in front, which defeats the purpose.

I agree it shouldn't be standard operating procedure in the game, but I could see certain ships being able to do it. At the moment, Demo is the only one with the capability. Which is why, at face value, I'm interested in an officer/upgrade that applies to certain ships.

1 minute ago, CptAwesomer said:

But in Armada, even if you overtake your prey, if you're not first player/outactivate your opponent, even with a ship that could arguably be classified as a pursuer (i.e.: a MC30), there's hardly any way to inflict significant damage on your prey. The only way to sort of do it is to end your movement on the sides/in front, which defeats the purpose.

If you 'overtake your prey' in Armada - say you have one of the rare speed-3 vs speed-2 fights or something like that - sure, it works fine. You may start out of range, or at the edge of it, but once you have moved to be bumper-to-bumper with the enemy, their next move isn't going to be able to get them out of your weapons range*. So the following turn you can shoot them, then move in again and rinse/repeat.

Heck, even at speed 4, where nothing is outright 'faster' per se, you cannot move out of red-dice range of a ship that is effectively their-front-dial-to-your-rear-dial. While a speed 2 ship cannot even get out of blue dice range from that position. It's true you have to pull into the side arcs a bit if you want to keep them in black-dice range, but given black dice are sitting in the same design space as naval carronades (absolutely useless in pursuit fights), that doesn't even seem undesirable.

Yep it’s always been exceptionally weird that being behind your target was really bad.

Also yay for task force games!

39 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Yep it’s always been exceptionally weird that being behind your target was really bad.

Nonono - that's correct for naval combat. Armada is presently accurate, there. This isn't air combat. Naval combat works differently. (Maybe the level of effect could be toned down in Armada a little - and certainly the game needs more valid speed choices for ships anyway, but still...)

Quote

Also yay for task force games!

Well more than just SFB uses impulse movement systems.

That said, you could just as easily kill both birds with the same stone having an opportunity-fire system.

IE., ships don't teleport from the start of their maneuver template to the end of it, but have to be able to move down it notch at a time (checking for collisions/obstacles/etc at each notch). At each notch, the enemy can also check for shots against the maneuvering ship. Up to one enemy ship, which hasn't activated that turn, can choose to make a single attack during each such check - this counts as all of the 'attacks' that ship can make in the turn, so it cannot make additional opportunity fire shots that turn, nor perform any attacks when it activates.

*boom*, both problems solved.

3 hours ago, xanderf said:

(That said, per previous point - you put two naval ships in battle that do have the same speed...the pursuer isn't going to win that fight. But rarely do naval ships have the same speed, while in this game it's common...indeed almost the default.)

This is where your assumption is coloring your conclusion. Yes, 15-kt battleship vs 15-kt battleship with identical maneuverability, the lead ship is going to win every time in a vacuum by coming about to bring a broadside to bear. But that's not the scenario being described here.

First, the assumption here is that the pursuer has already demonstrated superior maneuver by getting into the aft quadrant of the quarry. If he hadn't, we'd be talking about making attacks into the quarry's beam (or fore, in the case of forward-facing armament).

Second, most surface combatants IRL are strongest both offensively and defensively out the broadside; this is manifestly not the case in Armada, where most ships are most heavily shielded out the front, and *many* are also most heavily-armed out the front.

Submarine combat is actually pretty good framework for this scenario: cat-and-mouse range avoidance (capped by weapons range and coverage in Armada, sonar range and coverage in subs) until both vessels are in close combat and maneuvering range, sudden kills upon engagement, forward-facing primary armament, possibility of outrunning salvoes. And if I'm driving an attack sub, I **** sure want the pursuit position against almost any submarine adversary.

So, yes, I agree that the scenario of an MC80 chasing another MC80 isn't advantageous for the pursuer. But that's already captured by the existing mechanics of the game, in which the lead ship can more easily maneuver to bring its heavily-armed broadside to bear. An MC30 chasing a VSD is a very different scenario, created by factors not common in real-world surface combat, and which isn't adequately captured by the existing mechanics of the game.

2 hours ago, xanderf said:

Nonono - that's correct for naval combat. Armada is presently accurate, there. This isn't air combat. Naval combat works differently. (Maybe the level of effect could be toned down in Armada a little - and certainly the game needs more valid speed choices for ships anyway, but still...)

Well more than just SFB uses impulse movement systems.

That said, you could just as easily kill both birds with the same stone having an opportunity-fire system.

IE., ships don't teleport from the start of their maneuver template to the end of it, but have to be able to move down it notch at a time (checking for collisions/obstacles/etc at each notch). At each notch, the enemy can also check for shots against the maneuvering ship. Up to one enemy ship, which hasn't activated that turn, can choose to make a single attack during each such check - this counts as all of the 'attacks' that ship can make in the turn, so it cannot make additional opportunity fire shots that turn, nor perform any attacks when it activates.

*boom*, both problems solved.

You're really going to have to explain this, instead of just saying its all wrong.

Also exactly why did you quote me, and quote those lines for what you're trying to say? Seems really not directly related. Quote someone else please who has more investment in the subject?

2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

This is where your assumption is coloring your conclusion. Yes, 15-kt battleship vs 15-kt battleship with identical maneuverability, the lead ship is going to win every time in a vacuum by coming about to bring a broadside to bear. But that's not the scenario being described here.

...

Second, most surface combatants IRL are strongest both offensively and defensively out the broadside; this is manifestly not the case in Armada, where most ships are most heavily shielded out the front, and *many* are also most heavily-armed out the front.

You are sort of missing the forest for the trees, here, if you'll pardon the expression, as the concentration of weapons fire isn't directly relevant.

Rather, the question is who controls the terms of the engagement.

And in a pursuit situation at sea, assuming equal speeds, that's the lead ship. You don't want the battle to head towards that coast? Too bad, the lead ship wants it so the pursuer has to follow. You don't want the battle to head towards that storm? Too bad, the lead ship wants it so the pursuer has to follow. Your reinforcements are coming from one direction and theirs another, and you'd rather not be steaming full speed towards theirs? Again, not your choice as the pursuer. And to a lesser extent, weapon arcs also matter - presuming either of your ideal arcs isn't facing the enemy, any maneuver you (the pursuer) make to bring better arcs to bear will see the enemy you are chasing gain more advantage by turning in the opposite direction - while they are free to present their own best arcs at the time of their choosing.

It's one of those truisms that spans eras and technologies - assuming equal sensors and speed - the ship being *chased* has the advantage, as the captain on that ship is deciding 100% of the conditions of engagement that occur while the pursuer has no influence at all.

Obviously this changes a LOT if the pursuer has a speed or sensor advantage, ergo the investment navies frequently make in having at least a few platforms with specifically that focus. (And honestly, that's two of the biggest areas Armada drops the ball, given every ship in the game has one of only 3 possible max speed options, and everyone DOES have identical sensors...??because reasons??)

Sir Francis Drake

20 hours ago, CptAwesomer said:

But in Armada, even if you overtake your prey, if you're not first player/outactivate your opponent, even with a ship that could arguably be classified as a pursuer (i.e.: a MC30), there's hardly any way to inflict significant damage on your prey. The only way to sort of do it is to end your movement on the sides/in front, which defeats the purpose.

I agree it shouldn't be standard operating procedure in the game, but I could see certain ships being able to do it. At the moment, Demo is the only one with the capability. Which is why, at face value, I'm interested in an officer/upgrade that applies to certain ships.

I think Cymoons are also very good at pursuing almost everything.

16 hours ago, xanderf said:

Nonono - that's correct for naval combat. Armada is presently accurate, there. This isn't air combat. Naval combat works differently. (Maybe the level of effect could be toned down in Armada a little - and certainly the game needs more valid speed choices for ships anyway, but still...)

I wouldn't say I agree with the OP but I think you miss something here. The problem with chasing in Armada is not only that the pursuer never get its prey (what could be ok under your POV and I agree with you) it is also that the fleeing ship is the one getting shots on the pursuer. In real naval combat ships shoot while moving, in Armada they don't. And that feels weird. A faster ship with the same range than a slower than may avoid a fight or escape from one but while they are in range both are and both take shots.

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I think Cymoons are also very good at pursuing almost everything.

Not if the other player is going first every turn at Speed 3.

I don‘t think this chase-problem really matters when you can use bomber squadrons (they are still there to use, Admiral). Yes, it may not be realistic that the pursuer can‘t use his guns, but it‘s Star Wars!

I mean i would probably have fun discussing earth-history with @Ginkapo about how much effect Drake‘s long range engagements with the spanish ships really had against the Armada in historical naval combat (i think negligible), but in Star Wars we‘ve two pursuits, in TLJ (🤮) and the battle against the Malevolence (Clone Wars), that use this theme of not being able to catch up a fleeing ship. Improve tractor beams if you want Star Wars!

12 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Sir Francis Drake

@ovinomanc3r youve reacted to the wrong posts. This post was entirely a dig at you/your nation.

1 hour ago, Phil B said:

Not if the other player is going first every turn at Speed 3.

Moving first doesn't matter if you can't escape from long range "at least".

59 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

@ovinomanc3r youve reacted to the wrong posts. This post was entirely a dig at you/your nation.

Sorry someone famous in your country?😉

4 hours ago, KaLeu said:

I don‘t think this chase-problem really matters when you can use bomber squadrons (they are still there to use, Admiral). Yes, it may not be realistic that the pursuer can‘t use his guns, but it‘s Star Wars!

I mean i would probably have fun discussing earth-history with @Ginkapo about how much effect Drake‘s long range engagements with the spanish ships really had against the Armada in historical naval combat (i think negligible), but in Star Wars we‘ve two pursuits, in TLJ (🤮) and the battle against the Malevolence (Clone Wars), that use this theme of not being able to catch up a fleeing ship. Improve tractor beams if you want Star Wars!

Also the opening of ANH.

Literally the first Star Wars scene most of us saw was a CR90 being caught by an ISD.

Look, this ISD is in a really bad combat position! This CR90 is in full control of the situation ...

Sorry, I've never been in naval combat. I'm only talking as a gamer. I think too often endgame in Armada becomes pointless, because of the lacking possibility of effectful pursuit.

In my eyes it's not important if Star Wars: Armada does reflect historical naval combat at all. Star Wars has neverever been historical or scientifically correct in any aspect. It's a universe ful with light sabers, space wizards, vacuum breathing giant worms, visible laser in the void, ... But it always was a universe full of action and suspense. That's what rules and core mechanics should reflect.

I would appreciate if somebody would reflect and/or try out if the game would benefit from a Demo-light-rule or not. I will test it next week and write down which way it changed the gameplay.

Ship pursuits make for bad naval engagements, bad gameplay experiences, and bad Star Wars movies. *cough* Last Jedi *cough*