4 hours ago, rasproteus said:

The point is this - it's not optimizers who are the problem, it's inexperienced optimizers.

**** all those casuals.... we dont want those in our game experience.

4 hours ago, rasproteus said:

But if you are demanding flawless precision play from your opponents while simultaneously denying them the tools to do so quickly, it will take them a long time, no matter how many tools you deny them.

Unless .... wait for it ... you disallow any premeasuring completely.

I dont see why it is assumed that this will have no effect.

@RapidReload are you ok?

36 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

Unless .... wait for it ... you disallow any premeasuring completely.

I dont see why it is assumed that this will have no effect.

Players will use the ruler before activating squadrons to set reference points using the stars. It will have an effect: things get worse.

5 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Players will use the ruler before activating squadrons to set reference points using the stars. It will have an effect: things get worse.

You may not touch the ruler unless determining movement range of a squadron, determining attack range... and only for that purpose.

47 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

You may not touch the ruler unless determining movement range of a squadron, determining attack range... and only for that purpose.

You can't assign intent to an action.* "I'm trying to measure my firing range, I'm just really bad at it." But even if you could, you'll still encounter the same issues with nothing other than the human eyeball. 100%, people will spend an eternity staring at the squads if they can't measure them.

The fundamental hypothesis eliminating premeasuring hinges on is this: if you take away tools, people will stop worrying so much about precision. It's simply untrue. For all the same reasons we care about precision before, it still matters. Even if the end result is worse, the time spent won't go by more quickly by making the task more difficult.

*Edit: Also, the premeasuring is determining attack range, just not for ships.

1 minute ago, The Jabbawookie said:

"I'm trying to measure my firing range, I'm just really bad at it." But even if you could, you'll still encounter the same issues with nothing other than the human eyeball. 100%, people will spend an eternity staring at the squads if they can't measure them. 

The fundamental hypothesis eliminating premeasuring hinges on is this: if you take away tools, people will stop worrying so much about precision. It's simply untrue. For all the same reasons we care about precision before, it still matters. Even if the end result is worse, the time spent won't go by more quickly by making the task more difficult

There are always cheaters.

I dont think that most people will just stare at the stars with no new information gained. There are some that might but a small minority.

I cant show facts, but my believe is that it might in most games that are not streamed world finals.

4 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

There are always cheaters.

I dont think that most people will just stare at the stars with no new information gained. There are some that might but a small minority.

I cant show facts, but my believe is that it might in most games that are not streamed world finals.

It's not cheating; it's something that you simply can't regulate. As for stargazing, the same players who are so meticulous now are going to be naturally biased toward playing that way. It's self-selecting for that mentality.

I will never play quickly when I think careful consideration matters, stars or ruler. I won't play casual squadron games with people who aren't understanding of that, because one or both of us is going to have less fun. No shade to them. Whether it's Ciena or a YV-666, having the ability to use squads to the fullest is part of what makes this a strategy-based game. One shouldn't have to drive an hour each way, to play for two more, to have the fate of the game flip in seconds (in either direction) because someone ironically didn't want to waste time measuring.

I respect that things are different for some people, and they should do what makes them happy. But beyond house rules and casual games, this would be a bad regulation for everyone.

1 hour ago, RapidReload said:

There are always cheaters.

I dont think that most people will just stare at the stars with no new information gained. There are some that might but a small minority.

I cant show facts, but my believe is that it might in most games that are not streamed world finals.

Can you describe in detail an activation/several activations and when, where, and which rulers may be used?

Players who are meticulous will stay meticulous no matter what parameters you give them regarding tool use. Generally the less tools you have, the longer you will take.

Having a clock, either turn limit or overall limit would be the "best" way to handle this, while allowing more freedom in premeasurement (multiple tools ect), this would allow the meticulous players to get what they need (within reason with the time limits)

This is assuming the problem is bad enough to warrant the change. Personally I think the only time a chess clock would be noticeably better would be elimination play.

7 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I respect that things are different for some people, and they should do what makes them happy. But beyond house rules and casual games, this would be a bad regulation for everyone.

Lets agree to disagree.

6 hours ago, rasproteus said:

Can you describe in detail an activation/several activations and when, where, and which rulers may be used?

Simply apply the same approach and level of scrutiny currently used for the nav tool also to the range ruler. You may only measure range from the squadron you are activating and only during the movement phase of that sqd. You may only measure attack range from the ship you are activating and only during the attack ship phase.

Same as with the nav tool. If an opponent started using their nav tool on ships during the command dial phase I would call that person a cheater, at least on the inside.

8 hours ago, RapidReload said:

Lets agree to disagree.

Simply apply the same approach and level of scrutiny currently used for the nav tool also to the range ruler. You may only measure range from the squadron you are activating and only during the movement phase of that sqd. You may only measure attack range from the ship you are activating and only during the attack ship phase.

Same as with the nav tool. If an opponent started using their nav tool on ships during the command dial phase I would call that person a cheater, at least on the inside.

I think that if your end goal is simply to speed up the game, this will have the desired effect, sure. If you want a fun game where your decisions are generally better than random chance, probably not.

You're intentionally eliminating a player's ability to make informed decisions about half of the game: Am I going to get shot next turn or not? How many dice? What dials do I need to set to compensate for that? Am I going to be able to shoot next turn? Do I need to set a CF dial? Will that ship survive a shot, or is he double-arced? Do I need to activate him first? If you eliminate informed decisions and reduce the tactical aspect of the game to essentially guesswork, there's really no reason to assume that people would spend a lot of time debating their next move.

Of course, it's equally likely that the entire competitive aspect of the game would die out... but hey, if you can find a game, it'll probably be faster.

My solution:

Put all squadrons on x-wing bases. Assign all squadrons maneuver dials.

Then replace all ships from the game with more squadrons and play a game of x-wing 😂.

Joking aside, (and to be clear, I am an occasional, casual player that just likes star wars a lot...) I think redoing the squadron movement rules would make the game that much more appealing to play and that much easier to jump into. I just don't like how it works right now- I like almost every other aspect of how fighters work, as you get a lot of the "flavor" of each fighter type without excessive amounts of unique rules. I love how they interact with ship command dials and how the game is almost at that perfect place where if you can "hit that opening" on an undefended ship, fighters can be really punishing, but they are not auto-win tools and CAP is a thing. I don't know exactly how to make it better without ruining that feel (maybe it can't be?), but there are a lot of really good ideas in this topic. Maybe a maneuver dial and templates really might help after all...

56 minutes ago, DUR said:

My solution:

Put all squadrons on x-wing bases. Assign all squadrons maneuver dials.

Then replace all ships from the game with more squadrons and play a game of x-wing 😂.

Joking aside, (and to be clear, I am an occasional, casual player that just likes star wars a lot...) I think redoing the squadron movement rules would make the game that much more appealing to play and that much easier to jump into. I just don't like how it works right now- I like almost every other aspect of how fighters work, as you get a lot of the "flavor" of each fighter type without excessive amounts of unique rules. I love how they interact with ship command dials and how the game is almost at that perfect place where if you can "hit that opening" on an undefended ship, fighters can be really punishing, but they are not auto-win tools and CAP is a thing. I don't know exactly how to make it better without ruining that feel (maybe it can't be?), but there are a lot of really good ideas in this topic. Maybe a maneuver dial and templates really might help after all...

Let it be known here and henceforth that I am all for ideas that streamline the squadron game. I don't REALLY want a chess match minigame when it comes to squadrons, although I appreciate the time and skill that is involved in learning and winning it. It's also a ton of fun to build a list that has so much synergy in it and to balance your ability to damage other squads against doing damage to ships - because otherwise it's a waste of points.

No, I guess I take that back. I do like the chess match minigame, I guess. I just want to streamline it without ruining it.

3 hours ago, rasproteus said:

Do I need to activate him first? If you eliminate informed decisions and reduce the tactical aspect of the game to essentially guesswork, there's really no reason to assume that people would spend a lot of time debating their next move.

Of course, it's equally likely that the entire competitive aspect of the game would die out... but hey, if you can find a game, it'll probably be faster.

But such a change wouldn't be eliminating informed decisions, it'd just be preventing perfectly informed decisions. A big part of gaming is trying to optimize your decisions from your available options in spite of not having perfect information about a situation (e.g. What cards are in your opponent's hand? Is your opponent collecting reed for her current strategy? Will this attack roll succeed or whiff? Did my opponent dial in a 1-Forward or a 5-K turn? If I attack the Player to my Right, will the Player to My Left attack my now less guarded border? Will the Family Growth space become available this round or in four rounds? etc.). It is actually quite rare to find games where players have perfection information from which to make decisions, though in a crude sense this gets to the heart of the Ameri-Trash vs Euro-Game debate. Attempting to optimize despite not having perfect information is the point to pretty much every card, board, and table game.

The points you note are fair, but then why don't we allow pre-measuring with the maneuver tool? Why don't we, like with squadrons, allow a player to try several different ship spots before "removing their finger from the piece" and committing to one? If anything, ship movement is perhaps more critical than squad movement, because ships determine when a player is still in the game or eliminated. Why do we use dice at all, as the dice create random future scenarios that aren't perfectly knowable? It may be very likely that an upcoming attack will kill a ship/squadron, but dice have a way of absolutely crapping all over the best laid plans, and it's always possible for the RNG of dice to have a more pronounced effect on the game in a way that doesn't necessarily favor the player making the better decisions.

So there are plenty of aspects of the game where players already operate without perfect information, and they are able to still do so in strategic, thoughtful, tactical ways. In fact, we might believe the game is better for it (imagine Armada where pre-measuring and checking spots during a ship's move was allowed, just like it is for squadrons, or a version without dice). There is a cost to perfectly informed decisions being a part of the game.

Does perfect information being available in the squadron game make the game of Armada better? Maybe, I mean that entirely depends on each player's subjective preferences. But it's not fair to conclude that it'd be very likely for the competitive game of Armada to entirely die out just because players can't access perfect information when optimizing squadron moves, since such players haven't avoided or abandoned the game because of the dice or because of the ban on maneuver tool pre-measuring, both of which prevent having perfect information on which to base decisions.

12 hours ago, RapidReload said:

Simply apply the same approach and level of scrutiny currently used for the nav tool also to the range ruler. You may only measure range from the squadron you are activating and only during the movement phase of that sqd. You may only measure attack range from the ship you are activating and only during the attack ship phase.

Same as with the nav tool. If an opponent started using their nav tool on ships during the command dial phase I would call that person a cheater, at least on the inside.

Except that many players, myself included already have rough ways around this that take way longer than just using the tool. While you'll never be as precise, you can set you nav tool to what you want to do, measure that distance moved with you finger and squad move tool, and have a good estimation. then reset, or remeasure (as it's not precise). I haven't broken any rules as I'm not entering the play area, but it's still taking a longer time.

Also, having played WFB and BFG though all of their non-premeasuring phases, what people talk about about ability to predict ranges is key. One of our top tournament players had the gift of being able to drop his cannon shots and nova cannon blasts exactly where he wanted (and then scatter them). ?It was really hard for a newer player, or even one without that gift (like myself mostly, I was good but no where near his level), to play him, as his shots were perfect, every time (modified only by the subsequent dice). Likewise, his charges were almost always on point, whereas mine, even when taking my fingers to the ruler, and putting them down as a rough estimation, were not.

As soon as it pre-measuring was allowed, it made it way easier to be at a similar skill level. I want my cannon to be exactly 8 inches from the front of that unit due to bounces.... now I don't need to guess (or even measure really in that case, one max range is confirmed), just roll the randomizer dice.

Does Squad play take a lot of time? Yep!@ My first game against a no squad fleet was done in a flash, but players are also investing a lot of points into it, just like how an MSU player will take longer to set their dials than a 2-ship player, that's where their points are.

Another point that hasn't really been brought up is that yes Squad on Squad fights take a while....at the start of engagement. Before that, set-up is generally easy (I need to make sure his fastest fighter can't jump me, which also being in a good position-a few measurements max), and at the end of the game, as many of the squads will be dead if they engaged and had those long activation.... So one activation on the engagement turn might take a while, but how quick are they on other turns? Vs ships that always need need to activate?

Also, small ships? How long does it take an experienced player to dodge with a CR90 with a nav dial (and maybe token)on a crucial turn? So there's lots of things that take time, and I think players may just want to step back take a look at more of them, rather than just on the one that bugs them specifically.

22 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

The points you note are fair, but then why don't we allow pre-measuring with the maneuver tool? Why don't we, like with squadrons, allow a player to try several different ship spots before "removing their finger from the piece" and committing to one? If anything, ship movement is perhaps more critical than squad movement, because ships determine when a player is still in the game or eliminated.

I suspect it’s due to the finite, yet still large, number of positions a ship can occupy with a maneuver. You don’t need to worry about moving the same distance, but a quarter inch to the left... because you can’t. Squadrons almost always have infinite possible positions, making fine adjustments much more practical.

23 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Why do we use dice at all, as the dice create random future scenarios that aren't perfectly knowable?

That’s a great question. Personally, I wouldn’t mind removing them in favor of printing 2-3 attacks for each arc, some with accuracies, some with more damage.

4 hours ago, rasproteus said:

I think that if your end goal is simply to speed up the game, this will have the desired effect, sure. If you want a fun game where your decisions are generally better than random chance, probably not.

You're intentionally eliminating a player's ability to make informed decisions about half of the game: Am I going to get shot next turn or not? How many dice? What dials do I need to set to compensate for that? Am I going to be able to shoot next turn? Do I need to set a CF dial? Will that ship survive a shot, or is he double-arced? Do I need to activate him first? If you eliminate informed decisions and reduce the tactical aspect of the game to essentially guesswork, there's really no reason to assume that people would spend a lot of time debating their next move.

Of course, it's equally likely that the entire competitive aspect of the game would die out... but hey, if you can find a game, it'll probably be faster.

Well I give you that it would be helpful to check attack ranges from a ship after it moves. We can allow measuring those from a ship during its entire activation and squad rules can go ahead unchanged to what I mentioned previously.

Anyone that attempts to find helpful solutions to my proposal, that does not claim perfection, is welcome.

On 3/28/2019 at 3:22 PM, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Another entirely radical idea that popped into my head would be to redefine Squadron Engagement.

If Squadrons were only Engaged with enemy squadrons they were touching, and could only attack squadrons and ships that they were touching, so many measurements would be eliminated,and you wouldn't have to make tricky "is it in or out of Range 1" calls. Engaged and Attacking Opportunities become discreet: you are touching or you aren't. It would make squadron combat more like a hand-to-hand melee, which maybe isn't so crazy. And it would mean one Tycho or Shara couldn't just pop in and engage like six enemy squadrons, it would have to commit to one or maybe two specific squads to engage.

It would limit the threat-range of each squad, but would also mean the slow Mexican Stand-Off of Squadron engagement wouldn't be so pronounced. As it stands now, if your squadron flies over and attacks an enemy squadron cluster, a lot of those squadrons around it might be able to shoot back at you unless you get that perfect "just millimeters in / just millimeters out" set up where you are only engaging the target. This way, all those neighboring squadrons could only hit back if they could get moves to get into contact of your base.

It would also make focus fire more difficult, since only so many squadrons could touch the base of their target. Intel would become less uber-powerful and essential than it is now, and players could use the board and their pieces more to deny engagement opportunities. If I keep my Prized Squad A nestled between a bunch of screens of my other squadrons, those squadrons would have to be engaged and killed first (though, my Prized Squad also wouldn't be able to engage anything until it left that screen).


Abilities like Escort would have to be reworked, as would Snipe probably (maybe make Snipe that you can engage squadrons at Range 1... and make it expensive). Escort could possibly be something like Biggs is currently where you can suffer the damage of friendly squadrons at Range 1, maybe something like "When a friendly squadron at Range 1 suffers one or more damage, you may suffer 2 damage to reduce the damage suffered by that friendly ship by 1." So Escorts can protect more valuable/vulnerable targets, but at a tax, so you couldn't just spread damage out across a sea of Escorts without any penalty.


I dunno, just another thought.

You just blew my mind.