43 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

I think the best possible thing I can do is live read this post. I'll be red.

I mean, I think you're reading "analysis paralysis" way too literally.

Sometimes it's people who just can't commit to a decision quickly when they have a bunch of options, we could also call them Indecisives--even if they had perfect information about all of their choices, they still have no idea which they should choose. These people slow any complex game down and always will, and it's true that no change to game procedures is likely to address that (other than having some hard-to-enforce "no stalling" rule like is found in the FFG tournament documents).

But in Armada there are people who analyze things very deeply, though unlike Indecisives these people can make quick confident decisions when looking at a list of options. Where they slow down is they are going to strategically optimize that choice and pick the best, which for them requires coming to as perfect-as-possible information about all of their choices, so let's call them Optimizers. So they slow the game down on the analysis part, not because they can't commit to a decision, but because they're going to collect perfect information about each possibility first so they can make an informed choice. So when they commit to move this squad to any given spot, they might have a list of six or seven considerations they'd like that move to satisfy (Ranges to two enemy squads they'd like to engage, range to an enemy squad they don't want to engage, range to a friendly squad for a support ability, range to a friendly carrier for activation next round, and range to an an enemy ship to avoid flak). So they pick their preferred spot to move to, Destination A, and then they check those six measurements from Spot A. Maybe 4 are satisfied, but 2 are not. Okay, now let's look at the Destination B, a different spot that squadron could move to, and check the ranges to all the range-relevant objects. Maybe there are four, and three are satisfied and one is not. Okay, now let's check Spot C... okay, and once all this data collection is done, they very quickly say "okay I know I want Spot B, that's my best play." They took a very long time, but it wasn't because of indecision, it was because of information-collection for each of those options.


I agree that limiting pre-measuring wouldn't do much to help the Indecisives (the classic AP archetype), but it would likely speed up the Optimizers, because they won't be able to make all the measurements and remeasurements that go into an optimized move, and they'd have to use a quicker visual assessment heuristic (like so many other games that forbid premeasuring).

Look, nothing against the Optimizers, they are just playing the game as smartly as possible and as explicitly allowed by the rules. I am an optimizer myself when I play the game, because you're only playing a weaker game if you don't. But, for me, at least, while it enables the "smartest" and "most-informed" play decisions, it sure leads to tedious game play. I'm not saying Armada ought be a pure beer-n-pretzels game or a Fluxx or something, but having to make decisions without perfect information collection every time would not undermine the strategic or tactical integrity of the game.

9 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I mean, I think you're reading "analysis paralysis" way too literally.

Sometimes it's people who just can't commit to a decision quickly when they have a bunch of options, we could also call them Indecisives--even if they had perfect information about all of their choices, they still have no idea which they should choose. These people slow any complex game down and always will, and it's true that no change to game procedures is likely to address that (other than having some hard-to-enforce "no stalling" rule like in FFG tournament documents).

But in Armada there are people who analyze things very deeply, but unlike Indecisives (classic Aanalysis Paralysis) these people can make quick confident decisions when looking at a list of options. Where they slow down is they are going to strategically optimize that choice and pick the best, but only after coming to as perfect-as-possible information about all of their choices, so let's call them Optimizers. So they slow way down on the analysis part, because they're going to collect perfect information about each possibility so as to then be able to compare the options before them in as a careful and optimized way as possible. So when they commit to move this squad to any given spot, they might have a list of six or seven considerations they'd like that move to satisfy (Ranges to gaming pieces A, B, C, X, Y, and Z let's say). So they pick their preferred spot to move to, Destination A, and then they check those six measurements from Spot A. Maybe 4 are satisfied, but 2 are not. Okay, now let's look at the Destination B, a different spot that squadron could move to, and check the ranges to all the range-relevant objects. Maybe there are four, and three are satisfied and one is not. Okay, now let's check Spot C... okay, and once all this data collection is done, they very quickly say "okay I know I want Spot B, that's my best play." They took a very long time, but it wasn't because of indecision, because of information-collection.


I agree that limiting pre-measuring wouldn't do much to help the Indecisives (the classic AP archetype), but it would likely speed up the Optimizers, because they won't be able to make all the measurements and remeasurements that go into an optimized move, and they'd have to use a quicker visual assessment heuristic (like so many other games that forbid premeasuring).

Look, nothing against the Optimizers, they are just playing the game as smartly as possible and as explicitly allowed by the rules. I am an optimizer myself when I play the game, because you're only playing a weaker game if you don't. But, for me, at least, while it enables the "smartest" and "most-informed" play decisions, it sure leads to tedious game play. I'm not saying Armada ought be a pure beer-n-pretzels game or a Fluxx or something, but having to make decisions without perfect information collection every time would not undermine the strategic or tactical integrity of the game.

I am an optimizer.

I whole heartedly disagree (and explained why in my post) that your solution doesn't speed up optimizers. Those are EXACTLY the people who will REFUSE to make an imprecise movement and instead spend MORE time using the secondary alternatives to measuring to make sure that their moves are what they want with the minimal margin of error.

That said, I am also "gud".

I had to git gud to be an optimizer and play quickly, but it's not impossible. My point stands, as skill increases so does speed. The solution is making the mechanics of measuring easier, thus increasing the speed of the learning curve required to git gud, and reinforcing the fact that as skill increases you SHOULD be learning what moves do and don't have a beneficial effect so you don't need to follow every path each and every game to find the optimal outcome. If I have moves A-Z a new player can narrow it down to 100 positions, an experienced player can narrow it to maybe 3-4, I typically know as my turn starts where each of my squads are going within 1-2 mm, and just need to measure to make sure that my formation and engagements are accurate, which takes about 2 seconds. You don't let me make those measurements I am STILL going to get the result I want, I'm just going to be basing it off of the stars, the thickness of my thumbnail as I hover it over the board, the length of the shadows of my squad pegs, whatever I have to do to get it there.

The answer to every perceived problem with Armada is just "git gud"... It may be time for me to step back from the forums for a spell, that **** is infuriating. This game is not perfect, stop pretending it is.

Edit: @AllWingsStandyingBy, I want to thank you for this post. Discussion about how we can improve is far more interesting than the fanboy-ism that is so prevalent here.

Just now, IronNerd said:

The answer to every perceived problem with Armada is just "git gud"... It may be time for me to step back from the forums for a spell, that **** is infuriating. This game is not perfect, stop pretending it is.

Well you just need to practice with reading these forums more and git gud at it, then you won't find the discussions here so infuriating and you'll come to quickly see that Armada is the greatest game ever and FFG spoils us with their attention. You noob, try and get 1337 before you just whinge.

🤣

1 hour ago, IronNerd said:

The answer to every perceived problem with Armada is just "git gud"... It may be time for me to step back from the forums for a spell, that **** is infuriating. This game is not perfect, stop pretending it is.

Edit: @AllWingsStandyingBy, I want to thank you for this post. Discussion about how we can improve is far more interesting than the fanboy-ism that is so prevalent here.

I use the term mockingly, I know the answer to every question is not simply becoming more skilled.

THIS topic, however, is dealing specifically with the causes of extended playtime. Extended play time is not a fleet composition problem, or mechanical system problem. If it was then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to finish a game in less amounts of time than reality shows is possible. This issue is first and foremost an experience issue. I can lampoon it as one needing to "git gud" or I can be an ******* and say you are simply wrong. When you know how to play armada, you move faster. That's simply the end of this discussion. The idea presented in this topic is based in a hypothetical that does not exist and the sole result of this change will be to further slow the game down. Why? Because it's been tried.

It's not fanboyism when the OP is simply, empirically, wrong.

You want to have a discussion? That's fine. Most of the people who are experienced and have actual things to say have moved on from these forums because THESE pointless types of discussions where people who have an (often totally unfounded) opinion tout it as unassailable fact are the only discussions that seem to pop up. Ones that are misguided armchair admiralling at best and annoying, trolly, and destructive at their worst.

Sorry it's not cool to tell someone they are wrong, especially when I tried to do it in a somewhat humorous way instead of just coming out and saying it. But that's what this thread is. Wrong.

23 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Sorry it's not cool to tell someone they are wrong, especially when I tried to do it in a somewhat humorous way instead of just coming out and saying it. But that's what this thread is. Wrong.

You don't get to be the authority on what is fact and what is not. I know plenty of guys that have been playing for years and really dig heavy squadron presence. They still take a healthy chunk of time, a chunk of time that I guarantee would be reduced with better rules.

Your opinion is wrong. Is that better? Now we are both stating as a unassailable fact that each other are wrong... oh wait, that's not how facts work...

This is a subjective issue. There is no right or wrong.

1 minute ago, IronNerd said:

You don't get to be the authority on what is fact and what is not. I know plenty of guys that have been playing for years and really dig heavy squadron presence. They still take a healthy chunk of time, a chunk of time that I guarantee would be reduced with better rules.

Your opinion is wrong. Is that better? Now we are both stating as a unassailable fact that each other are wrong... oh wait, that's not how facts work...

This is a subjective issue. There is no right or wrong.

Subjective issue? Not really. The OP is stating flatly that there is mechanical problem in the game system (unlimited measuring takes to long) that is causing delay that can be fixed with a mechanical solution in the game system (disallowing measuring). This is anything but subjective, this is a mechanical theory that can be tested. FFG themselves, pursuing this "less measuring = less time" thought process have limited measuring to 1 tool for this exact purpose (speeding up gameplay) and the result has, again, not subjectively, been shown to actually slow the game down. So the clearly non-subjective evidence we have on this topic is pointing clearly in the direction that the OP's theory is false, and his solution does not in fact speed up play.

I am sorry to say that you cannot say a non-subjective issue is subjective simply because you have no non-subjective evidence to contribute to the greater discussion in support of your opinions.

But you're no good to me red

Running out of time in games is one of the MAIN reasons I have turned to squadronless builds. In order to be a good squadron player you need to get lots of games under your belt. Until that happens, squad games can be the main reason a game goes to time. The problem for me though is that ever since I moved to Raddus, my opponents who bring a full squad ball with them take FOREVER trying to place their squads to prevent the Raddus drop.

As a result...I am a big fan of introducing a death clock for tournaments.

9 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

I am sorry to say that you cannot say a non-subjective issue is subjective simply because you have no non-subjective evidence to contribute to the greater discussion in support of your opinions.

You have presented zero scientific data, yet you vehemently declare that this is a objective issue. You ask for evidence, yet have presented no evidence. Does it just feel good for you to say you are right?

7 hours ago, clontroper5 said:

Hmm, I haven't really ever had a problem with squadron slow play, although I play extremely aggressive and therefor most games I play in are quick by armada standards (I either win or lose by Turn 4 usually)

I dislike the idea of eliminating premeasure because that would water down the tactical elements of the game IMO.

The last Worlds final was a good example of what happens in competitive squadron vs sqadron play. Each squad activation took forever to execute, and each side had ~10+ squads. It was painful to watch and I'm an Armada fanboy! The match wasn't close to over when the time limit was hit. And this is from 2 top-tier squad players. Not good, not good at all.

1 hour ago, Thraug said:

The last Worlds final was a good example of what happens in competitive squadron vs sqadron play. Each squad activation took forever to execute, and each side had ~10+ squads. It was painful to watch and I'm an Armada fanboy! The match wasn't close to over when the time limit was hit. And this is from 2 top-tier squad players. Not good, not good at all.

That's not heavy squad play, that's elimination Armada. Head to head matchups are winner take all so they play like that because that's how you play it, delay engagement as long as possible then kill a squadron then bounce. They are ALL terrible, Armada isn't meant to be played like that. Single elimination matchups should be taken out of the tourney structure, the game is made for swiss.

Play as Sloane. The paralysis lasts rounds 1-3, then all their squads are dead and the game speeds up.

50 minutes ago, Teh HOBO said:

That's not heavy squad play, that's elimination Armada. Head to head matchups are winner take all so they play like that because that's how you play it, delay engagement as long as possible then kill a squadron then bounce. They are ALL terrible, Armada isn't meant to be played like that. Single elimination matchups should be taken out of the tourney structure, the game is made for swiss.

THANK YOU!!!!

I've been to a few tourneys now and I flew 4 squadrons each time. Vader, Mauler, Dengar, Fel. Their entire purpose, was murdering enemy squadrons then flying away. Which they did. I've played matches where the enemy had 10 squadrons and I was able to go to the bathroom, go buy a drink, meander back, and they might have been halfway through their activation... but I also didn't mind because I was doing stuff. I've had matches where I waited for 1 minute per squadron activation... during the ship phase, and that was just the ship phase. I've also played matches where each squadron activation was just 10 seconds.

Its depends on the player, the list, and the objective. Its not one thing that does it.

I would personally like to see the number dropped to 25% of squadrons (But that's because 25% of 200/300/400/600/800/1200 is easy to remember and you don't have to math it out) and a change over to base contact for engagement. You can keep the ranges and stuff, but base contact for engagement was nice the times I've used it. I would also like to see an actual, better base design so that there is less picking up/putting down and sliding sliders and stuff with squadrons. It would alternatively help because then the measuring only has to be done once or so and you have to worry less about if things got moved by a millimeter.

12 hours ago, 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.

"Hay you bumped my Squadron" that's all you would hear with a rule like that. also the fact you would have to change a lot of Abilities would just make it to hard to do. I kinda like it and see where your going but please no.

Ok I from what i read every one has a problem with the time it takes to do Squadron things. Premeasuring is pointed at as the problem. I do not agree with this. I believe it is the anal premeasuring that is the problem. the easiest way to fix that is to introduce an accepted slow play rule during this phase where if a player measures and measures and measures again there opponent should be able to call a judge over to get them to enforce a time limit. Squadrons that do not get activated within that time allowed do not get activated that round. this should be only something a judge can enforce when the see a player taking to long. A judge would not be able to enforce it unless one of the players asks them to so if to players want to spend 30 mins on the Squadron phase they may do so. its a way to light a fire under some players.

I know this wont ever be a rule but its nice to think about

I believe there are 3 ways you win a game of Armada. You beat the list. you play the Objective. you play the player.

I find its not hard to spot the Slow players in Armada. I also know all the slow players in the area I play. knowing they are the slow players I think to my self how do I beat them on round 3. depending on there list and there speed, there will more then likely only be 4 rounds. It will be a slow game how do I win it. Who said that thing about knowing your enemy? Looking at it through that lens I find I know 2 3rd's of the games out come, dice will decide the rest. Unless I have a TRC Swam

Sadly slow players are here to stay you can try to fix it with some kinda rule change but then something else they do keep the game running slow. best to encourage players not to be anal about the millimeter. After all we have a bigger problem to deal with in the tournament structure before we worry about slow play.

13 hours ago, JauntyChapeau said:

This is part of the reason I can't play Vassal. There's no sound, there's no interaction, there's no plastic models to look at, just me staring at my screen until I get bored and open a new Reddit tab.

It cannot be overstated how much faster and more engaging playing with voice chat enabled in Discord or Skype makes the game.

9 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

I use the term mockingly, I know the answer to every question is not simply becoming more skilled.

THIS topic, however, is dealing specifically with the causes of extended playtime. Extended play time is not a fleet composition problem, or mechanical system problem. If it was then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to finish a game in less amounts of time than reality shows is possible. This issue is first and foremost an experience issue. I can lampoon it as one needing to "git gud" or I can be an ******* and say you are simply wrong. When you know how to play armada, you move faster. That's simply the end of this discussion. The idea presented in this topic is based in a hypothetical that does not exist and the sole result of this change will be to further slow the game down. Why? Because it's been tried.

It's not fanboyism when the OP is simply, empirically, wrong.

You want to have a discussion? That's fine. Most of the people who are experienced and have actual things to say have moved on from these forums because THESE pointless types of discussions where people who have an (often totally unfounded) opinion tout it as unassailable fact are the only discussions that seem to pop up. Ones that are misguided armchair admiralling at best and annoying, trolly, and destructive at their worst.

Sorry it's not cool to tell someone they are wrong, especially when I tried to do it in a somewhat humorous way instead of just coming out and saying it. But that's what this thread is. Wrong.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that I can definitely stand to improve when it comes to playing my own squadrons. But I think that the idea that squadron mechanics don't lead to slower play is simply ignoring realities of the mechanics and competent play. You can certainly play through them faster with skill just as with ships, but you're still obligated to a number of specific mechanical interactions that make squadrons very finicky and unusually complex on a per-unit basis.

I think the biggest problem with squadrons is that squadrons in Armada are, when you get down to it, just miniature capital ships. They have a slightly altered hull zone configuration and a less restrictive movement tool, but a player has to go through all the same steps of activating a ship for each one. You have to choose when in the sequence they are going to activate, possibly several turns ahead. You have harsh action restrictions based on command dials, tokens, and upgrades for both the squadron and the other units around it. Despite a relatively forgiving engagement window, ships and squadrons are forced into a play environment that requires extreme precision in most cases to optimally attack or defend. And just like last-first activation advantage on ships, squadrons are at their most valuable when they can overwhelm an attacking force without options to be seriously threatened in return but quickly lose value in any other scenario.

And this certainly does lead to many players micromanaging their squadrons especially when in the vicinity of hostile squadrons. It makes squadron defensive play a slogging mess as anything other than perfect precision results in the immediate loss of the squadron or the other units they're defending.

There are currently a few particular areas that I think are well intended but cause headaches from a time investment perspective:

1: Distance 1 engagement. This makes every single squadron in the game have at least one aura effect, and aura effects are typically the most complexifying elements in a miniatures game. When multiple units try to create an offensive or defensive scenario using aura effects, precision spacing becomes mandatory to be effective. And this means that even a minor change in the scenario, such as one ship missing the target location, can cause the entire formation to immediately fail in its purpose. This is in addition to other aura buffs and debuffs such as Swarm, Escort, Intel, and special rules like Jan's defense tokens or Dengar's Counter boost or Jendon's remote fire. Every additional aura adds an extra layer of mandated precision to the order of activation and spacing of affected squadrons on both sides of the engagement. And this requires more time be spent on each subsequent squadron maneuver by both players to ensure they are all achieving maximum benefit.

2: The strange squadron LOS rules create far too many corner cases where LOS between squadrons and other unit types such as ships and obstacles isn't immediately clear, even though it should be patently obvious. This creates scenarios where players need to place squadrons with extreme precision to hit the broad side of a Star Destroyer on it's most vulnerable hull where another ship could eyeball the same necessary position with relative ease.

3: With squadrons getting to attack before OR after movement by default, this requires that squadrons maintain a perfect defensive posture at all times both while attacking and defending. requiring yet more precision measurement for squadrons before, during and after any squadron engagements. Ships only have to worry about this issue from the Demolisher Gladiator, squadrons pose this threat to each other at all times.

So those are just three scenarios where precision measurement and positioning is required far more consistently than with ships, and this combines to make most squadrons take as much or more care for positioning, activation order, target engagement, and defense during activation as ships.

11 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

I tried to do it in a somewhat condescending assholey way instead of just coming out and saying it.

Sorry, but this is how it comes across to a neutral observer.

I think Broba is right tho. More tools and the rules like the right to adjust post-move to make a squads position match your pre-stated intention ("I want to move Mauler here to engage these three squads") seem to make the game faster, not slower.

Making all ranges about 50% longer, both movement and range ruler, and a streamlined squad system (pretty much an overhaul of squads) would greatly speed up play. Probably 1/2 the time of games.

I could see things from either side of the argument, but then again my home games don't have too much of an AP issue, even though I am particularly prone to all sorts of Indesicion Paralysis.

BUT, my games tend to focus on maximizing ships for both sides (I come from a history of ship-combat games that have MANY more ships on the table, so I like big battles), so the squadron game is really only trying to manage half a dozen squads for either side in most games, or very occasionally less if Rebels. So the amount of variables to worry about in Squadron placement seems to be dramatically lower for me than most problem games I see.

For what it's worth, the current Round 6 at Worlds being streamed is a potentially relevant real-world example of squadron play in competitive Armada.

Live Stream:

The past 15 minutes of this game are sort of the exact thing I'm talking about when I talk about pre-measuring and fiddiliness and optimiztion of squadron play, and how squadrons, despite only being 1/3 of a list, consume the vast majority of playtime in a game of Armada. Whether or not people find that to be an bug or a feature is an entirely separate question, of course, and even those that see it as more of a bug may not think it could/should be improved. But it's the case that we just spent roughly 4 minutes resolving a single squadron's activation... and the YouTube feed has had multiple snarks (none from me lol) about squadrons during that time ("That's some really painful squadron play..." - KMerse1, "We all love squadron play [sleeping emoji][laughing emoji]" - Stinchy, "At least they rolled some dice..." -KMerse1).

And, for what it's worth, it's not that these players need to get experience or need to "git gud" (As @BrobaFett has suggested elsewhere about the time spent on squadron play in competitive Armada), since these are Top15 Players in Round 6, and I know at least one of these players was playing all the way back during the first Gencon in 2015. And I know @Teh HOBO has noted that the issue is often Elimination vs Swiss Armada, but this is a Round 6 Swiss Round in this case.

Ok watching that I see a lot of the problems your talking about. first I would say ban the markers. they drive me nuts and they really don't add anything to the game.

Using that example above how about 2 new rules to fix the over measure problem.

1. you cannot measure from your opponents ships or Squadrons.

2. once you pick up the Maneuver tool you can not pick up the range ruler tool.

I cant remember the last time I saw a player measure so many times. I would call the judge over for slow play if I had a opponent going back and forth like that

I've often complained about the concept of a 2.0 version of the game - especially given it would almost certainly bring the dreaded blank upgrade rows and blank points..."Just use the app!"...

…BUT...

...there is at least one easy/obvious fix to squadrons that would need a 2.0 to do at all, and would actually be a big enough change it would get me onboard with it.

Instead of round bases - squadrons have octagonal bases. Size wouldn't change much for each of the 8 sides to match the current range ruler width. And issue the game with range-1 through range-5 straight rulers (a la X-Wing). When you move a squadron, you set the speed of choice flat against one of the sides, move the squadron to flat on the other side (yes, this makes squads a bit 'faster'). Does it fit? Great, you're done. It doesn't? You can try again using the speed-1 template the same direction. THAT doesn't fit? Too bad, that squad doesn't move this round, you're done and move on.

No fiddliness, no constant measuring and re-measuring. You decide a direction and speed, you've got two chances to go that way at all (chosen speed vs speed-1), then you move on to the next squad whichever way it goes.