3 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

Ok watching that I see a lot of the problems your talking about....

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

Well, games like the one I linked are the norm, not the exception, in high-level competitive Armada. Certainly every Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds I've been a part of, and while I only peeked at a couple of the other games streamed from today's Worlds they appeared to have similar squadron-precision and time invested into squadrons. The current final game just spent almost 9 Minutes resolving a single ship's Squadron Command. Which is precisely why I created this topic to explore this issue in the first place. This is something that is at the core of Armada's mechanics, and not some fringe issue caused by just a few individual's personal playstyle tempo.

But I want to be very clear about this next part. I do not think either of the players in that video were doing anything wrong, and I play my squadrons in much the same way--because to be any less optimizing is to not play your best game, and it will really cause yourself a lot of disadvantages--as impactful as squads are on determining the outcome of most games, every die roll counts. So to miss die rolls or to have to endure incoming die rolls you could have avoided is to play poorly. The rules of Armada, namely the carte-blanche premeasuring, explicitly allow and expect players to play in such a fashion, as this is precisely (pun intended) the sort of game Armada exists as at the moment. There was certainly nothing here that constituted anything malicious or would qualify as slow play that warrants a judge or repercussions (in fact, if this was slow play... then in my experience the vast majority of high level Armada players are slow players, myself included).

Removing the carte-blanche "sure measure everything!" rules from the game would still reward players who played well, but would prevent players from being able to spend dozens of minutes over the course of the game checking and rechecking hundreds of distances for that "as perfect as can be" spot. Now, players will still be trying to get their squads into those "perfect as can be spots" but they'll have to do so with a bit of visual estimation, rather than the way they do now, which often feels more laborious than a friggin' mortar teaming spotting and dialing in a shell-strike on a target that's seven miles away uphill during a tornado.



It's an interesting and easily measurable empirical question: What % of time during a high-level Armada game is spent on dealing with squadrons? (moving squadrons, attacking with squadrons, flaking and tracking damage on squadrons, placing squadrons after an overlap, etc.). It would be incredibly boring data to collect from filmed games, but it'd be possible. My purely gut-level intuition is that, on average, in games involving 130ish points of squadrons on each side you could probably expect about 75% of the time playing the game to be dealing with squadron-stuff. I'm certainly not gonna collect data on it, since I'd rather piss glass while watching paint dry, but I'd love to see data on it. If my ballpark guess is even close to right, that's 3/4 of the game's time and effort spent on things that are making up 1/3 of the stuff on the table. And I think, at the fundamental level of the issue, this is why so many players (especially early in Armada's run, many of who have probably left the game by this point) groan as much they do about squadrons.

@AllWingsStandyingBy This thread seems relevant:

A lot of interesting points on both sides of the debate, but something in particular Ian Cross said stands out: that the harder you try to make it to achieve precision, the more stubbornly "that kind of player" will pursue it. I am that kind of player. By running squads a lot I'm usually quicker than most, but I will take as long as I deem necessary to gain perfect positioning. If I am denied use of the range ruler, I will spend as long or longer using visual aids; even if the payoff is a little worse, it's still an edge. As you say, this is not something to apologize for; it is this aspect of the game (squadrons) that I enjoy, because it's so much more precision-dependent and (IMO) complex than the ship game.

No disrespect intended to your argument, you have a legitimate grievance. I just don't personally share it (or believe your solution to be effective.)

18 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

No disrespect intended to your argument, you have a legitimate grievance. I just don't personally share it (or believe your solution to be effective.)

Thanks for the linked thread, had not read it before and definitely more to add to the consideration.

No disrespect at all taken, I appreciate your respectful and thoughtful response. I certainly think this is an open-ended question, at the moment, and part of why I've phrased this entire thread as a question is to stimulate discussion and consideration of all points.

I do believe that for some people, the current squadron measuring of the game is a feature, while for others it's a bug. Where players fall on that topic is a subjective matter that depends on lot on the sort of gaming preferences they have and what they want to get from their Armada gaming experience. As @IronNerd has noted up thread, this isn't the sort of question that has one objective right answer. And I am always happy to hear and engage with differing perspectives on such issues.


Personally, I've never cared for games like 40k or Infinity very much, because "tape-measure" movements have always struck me as really finicky and often fudged (intentionally or accidentally) and prone to optimization-slow-down. I've gravitated most towards game like Blood Bowl, where all the pieces exist in discreet squares on the board and movement is in # of spaces rather than a distance. A big draw for X-Wing was the rigid maneuver tools that took the measuring and optimization out of movements, giving the ships a clear single end point. It's also what I love about Armada ship movement (the in-practice imprecision and wiggle of the movement tool notwithstanding). Ships start at Point A and then you lock a fixed tool in and they go to Point B. Brilliant, simple, clean. But then Squadrons are the exact opposite: free-range pieces that slide/nudge their way to perfection during a move. The really crazy part is that when I first started with Armada I loved squadrons, they were my favorite part of the game. They were thematic, they looked great, they added a lot of decisions to the gameplay, which I find rewarding. But as time has progressed, either my preferences have simply changed or the rose-colored glasses have fallen off a bit or else the squadron game has actually gotten much more slow and finicky (all three are possible, but the latter might be the case as max-squad and aces and more range-dependent abilities and the overall effect of squadrons onto the game (e.g. Morna/Steele/Jendon vs mass A-Wings in the old days) have increased).


Just food for thought, and always appreciate hearing any opinions or viewpoints, especially when offered rationally and politely. Besides, it's not like we're known for being a community with too much stuff to talk about, so I say bring on more interesting, deep questions like this one, community!

46 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

It's an interesting and easily measurable empirical question: What % of time during a high-level Armada game is spent on dealing with squadrons? (moving squadrons, attacking with squadrons, flaking and tracking damage on squadrons, placing squadrons after an overlap, etc.). It would be incredibly boring data to collect from filmed games, but it'd be possible. My purely gut-level intuition is that, on average, in games involving 130ish points of squadrons on each side you could probably expect about 75% of the time playing the game to be dealing with squadron-stuff. I'm certainly not gonna collect data on it, since I'd rather piss glass while watching paint dry, but I'd love to see data on it. If my ballpark guess is even close to right, that's 3/4 of the game's time and effort spent on things that are making up 1/3 of the stuff on the table. And I think, at the fundamental level of the issue, this is why so many players (especially early in Armada's run, many of who have probably left the game by this point) groan as much they do about squadrons.

Trouble is what is High-level Armada. I do not believe there is such a thing. this is not like Magic where players get sponsored and paid to play this game professionally. I'm sure some shops will chip in to buy shirts and stuff, but I don't see anyone with a Coca Cola logo. If there were such players I do not believe we would have a problem with Squadrons. what we have is people who have a hobby at a high level tournament.

You have convinced me there is a problem with Squadrons in the game. I just do not want to see a radical solution that changes everything about the game. dialing back the measure everything to measure your own I think is a good start

I also think some one needs to point out to the players that measure the millimeters that they should go back and watch there games and see how many times that bump ships and move obstacles making all that measuring pointless

31 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Thanks for the linked thread, had not read it before and definitely more to add to the consideration.

No disrespect at all taken, I appreciate your respectful and thoughtful response. I certainly think this is an open-ended question, at the moment, and part of why I've phrased this entire thread as a question is to stimulate discussion and consideration of all points.

I do believe that for some people, the current squadron measuring of the game is a feature, while for others it's a bug. Where players fall on that topic is a subjective matter that depends on lot on the sort of gaming preferences they have and what they want to get from their Armada gaming experience. As @IronNerd has noted up thread, this isn't the sort of question that has one objective right answer. And I am always happy to hear and engage with differing perspectives on such issues.


Personally, I've never cared for games like 40k or Infinity very much, because "tape-measure" movements have always struck me as really finicky and often fudged (intentionally or accidentally) and prone to optimization-slow-down. I've gravitated most towards game like Blood Bowl, where all the pieces exist in discreet squares on the board and movement is in # of spaces rather than a distance. A big draw for X-Wing was the rigid maneuver tools that took the measuring and optimization out of movements, giving the ships a clear single end point. It's also what I love about Armada ship movement (the in-practice imprecision and wiggle of the movement tool notwithstanding). Ships start at Point A and then you lock a fixed tool in and they go to Point B. Brilliant, simple, clean. But then Squadrons are the exact opposite: free-range pieces that slide/nudge their way to perfection during a move. The really crazy part is that when I first started with Armada I loved squadrons, they were my favorite part of the game. They were thematic, they looked great, they added a lot of decisions to the gameplay, which I find rewarding. But as time has progressed, either my preferences have simply changed or the rose-colored glasses have fallen off a bit or else the squadron game has actually gotten much more slow and finicky (all three are possible, but the latter might be the case as max-squad and aces and more range-dependent abilities and the overall effect of squadrons onto the game (e.g. Morna/Steele/Jendon vs mass A-Wings in the old days) have increased).


Just food for thought, and always appreciate hearing any opinions or viewpoints, especially when offered rationally and politely. Besides, it's not like we're known for being a community with too much stuff to talk about, so I say bring on more interesting, deep questions like this one, community!

I appreciate your response, it's good to have an open-minded discussion on such an interesting subject.

FFG is unlikely to ban their own star field mats. Short of that, I doubt players will give up prolonged measuring, whether with the tool or their eyes. So what we need is a way to have precision (the cause of all the finickiness) but to also achieve it quickly. Some of the suggestions (octagonal bases, base contact) seem effective for a major overhaul where sliders are changed to something else. But in terms of current gameplay, I would consider going the opposite direction of a pre-measure ban: get rid of the one tool at a time rule for squadrons only. Let people lay out their 3+ little range rulers (and there's no component disadvantage, since you may play with the same set of rulers) and sort things out. No forgetting your previous measurement, no compensating for little repositions, no eyeballing. It's almost certainly quicker than before and more precise. Everybody wins?

Honestly, I don't think most of the issues stem from the squadron game itself...

I'm pretty sure its the fact you can run entire ace wings of squadrons.

Like, why isn't there a unique limit? All the special abilities are what really cause the problem.

On 3/28/2019 at 9:40 AM, Caldias said:

I personally feel like reevaluating how squadrons are implemented would do more for the game than eliminating premeasuring. Eliminating premeasuring you'd still have people trying to estimate by the stars like 16th century sailors.

One idea I had a while ago is squads can be placed anywhere within range 2 of whatever ship they are assigned to until they are engaged. That way it's less finicky.

^this^

As I said from the core of Armada the squadron mechanics seem very much tacked on. Looking at from a table top perspective Armada looks more like 40k than X-wing Epic (1st edition) because of the movement, just instead of infantry/squadrons being the focus it is the vehicles/capital ships that are the focus. There is a point limit on squadrons they have no defense unless they are an ace these restrictions seems more like duct tape to keep an already clunky mechanic from coming lose and jamming up the game rather than actual actual play. Also it is more difficult to get exact measurements from circular bases unlike square bases simply because a flat edge doesn't lay perfectly with a round edge. They should have made cutouts in the range template that fit around the base.

Anyway, I know many of the purest (most from 40K) has an adverse opinion on premeasuring and table top games. To them, I say premeasuring is not hurting your game. IF you think it is taking too long it is often something else that is lengthening the game. I am just fine with premeasuring on the basis of accessibility and in case anyone hasn't noticed, Armada needs more players than it needs more pros. So this is a hard no against the OP.

I've been saying all of these issues existed for years. My preference is 2.0 with completely overhauled simplified streamlined Squadron rules.

Also, to alleviate the massive congestion this game always encounters, have much longer firing and movement ranges.

The squad game has driven countless local players away.

In responding this question, let me first give a little background to dyslexia.

In most western education systems we are introduced to the alphabet very early which is key to allowing kids to understand that b, d, p and q are different letters. Now I figure most of you wont see immediately why those could be confusing, however if you think about they are the same shape simply on a different orientation. If you look at the image below you can see the confusion caused by the dual idea, that a chair is always a chair no matter the orientation, but b, d, p and q are different entities.

Whats interesting about dyslexia is it can often be caused by kids figuring out that a chair is always a chair very early in their development and thus struggling with the alphabet.

Why am I talking about this here? Well the point is that our education systems are not geared to teach spatial awareness and actually those who develop this key skill are actually hindered. If we play armada without premeasurement than those with a predisposition for spatial awareness will have a major advantage.

I already personally feel that its somewhat unfair that because of my occupation I can eye in movements to millimetres without premeasuring. If no one was allowed to premeasure then the game becomes about spatial awareness far more than tactics or decision making. I dont want to see the game go that way.

Personally, I know one of the things that made games better for my in friendly games was having range rulers of multiple lengths. It made it so much easier than trying to manipulate a full-length ruler around our squadrons.

Our being less than hyper competitive also helps, too, I'll bet. When real stakes are on the line (beyond just winning against friends for fun's sake) the squadron problems increase tenfold.

I am loving all these interesting, thoughtful, and important considerations everyone! THIS is the community at it's best.


@The Jabbawookie - I completely agree that the "no more than one tool" rule was entirely misguided by FFG and has increased the time players spend measuring and optimizing. I'm sure FFG assumed something like "yikes... look at all these people triangulating with multiple tools and taking forever with each squad... gotta stop that!" What they didn't realize was that people will still do the exact same thing, they'll just do it using proxy-measurements and near-endless sliding of the piece with multiple measurements as it settles into its final resting spot. And this has certainly increased rather than decreased the time spent fidgeting with squads, while not at all de-incentivizing people to be less optimized in their squadron play.

@Ling27 - I also agree here. Aces have added complexity to the squadron game (while clearly being imbalanced, in the sense that tourney results suggests aces are much better than generics). With only one of each unique ace, it's more crucial to get the positioning and order of activation of each piece just right (e.g. Howl goes in first) and then there are compounded range measurements and optimizations, since so many Ace Abilities are range-dependent (e.g. Howlrunner, Mithel, Dengar, Jan Ors, Jendon, etc.) so there's so many more distances to keep in mind and optimize and check.

@Marinealver - Very true, Armada will live and fail by its more casual players, and the issue I've identified is likely more pronounced as the "competitiveness" (whatever that really means, as @X Wing Nut has noted is pretty vague and not clearly defined) of the game goes up. I was sort of surprised how many people didn't realize that this was the general reality of the typical "high level" Armada event, which I'll just somewhat sloppily use to refer to the top half of tables at Regionals and larger events. I've played in CCs with localish guys who are (like myself) extreme optimizers during a Regional, but during a CC they're pretty quick and much less worried about that perfect optimization of every squadron position. Of course, a CC environment also limits how many of those aces are present across the entire team, so that in and of itself reduces some of the complexity Ling was getting at.

@Ginkapo - Another fair point. I remember back in "Middlehammer 40k" lots of people used to complain that artillery stuff was stupid (e.g. Basilik Tanks, etc.) because it rewarded players who were really good at eyeballing distance (because the player declared how far they'd like to shoot, then measure it off and put the template down), but this wasn't clearly a skill that needed to be rewarded in a table-top game. So on the one hand, I'm inclined to sort of agree. On the other hand, I think Armada and any game like it implicitly rewards all sort of spatial-reasoning ability already. I'm sure some players are much better than others at visualizing where about a ship might be able to go next round and the round after (even though this is the one thing that cannot be pre-measured). And I'm pretty sure that the players who are better at this tend to do much better in Armada than those who cannot do this spatial-imagination and spatial-estimation as well. Even in X-Wing, with its lack of pre-measuring and thoroughly precise movement mechanics heavily rewards players with better spatial reasoning, because they can look at the board and much better visualize which moves will and won't just narrowly avoid an asteroid, for instance. I think spatial reasoning is always going to be advantageous in any and all games that do not use grids. Now, whether or not Armada would be a better game if it even further rewarded spatial reasoning, is still a poignant question...



Thanks everyone for all the contributions, much to think about.

If I was designing Armada from the ground up, maybe I'd think about have a faint grid of hexes on the mat. If Fighters existed in spaces on the board, then resolving movement and range-checking would be a breeze. Ships could still 'free move' as they do with only squadrons obeying the hexes, I suppose, though maybe resolving ship overlaps would be a little trickier. Of course, the downside to that (and almost certainly why FFG probably thought such a system would be terrible) is that a 6x3 mat would become a requirement to play, making the game much less user-friendly. *shrug*

9 hours ago, Thraug said:

I've been saying all of these issues existed for years. My preference is 2.0 with completely overhauled simplified streamlined Squadron rules.

Also, to alleviate the massive congestion this game always encounters, have much longer firing and movement ranges.

The squad game has driven countless local players away.

A 2.0 that would require a new core set will drive away the rest. we lost a lot of players across the state because X Wing did that.

not everyone can wear the cost of such things. I have so many lists and ships I cant fly as I do not have the money to upgrade all my collection in X Wing.

Allwings.

I understand your frustrations.

But I love how you used my video to complain about how long it took to do squadron stuff. Yet that game ENDED 20 minutes before time was called.

We played within time limit. How is that taking too long? Armada is not an exciting game to watch others play for long periods regardless of squadrons or not.

I only had ONE GAME played to past time. And that was my final game (round 7) where we we're both tired as **** after two days of 12+ hours of armada.

Regardless, I don't agree with your opinion.

But I understand it.

I would almost be inclined to suggest if you want to speed the game up allow players to use as many tools as they like and allow the movement tool to be altered. Nothing about the rules of pre-measuring, where arcs and ranges are so accurately determined and used makes the game faster.

Take the guess work out of the tactics and the game will actually play more for the tactics, and get faster because the players aren't worried about the minutiae of the movement system.

On 3/30/2019 at 2:32 PM, Marinealver said:

Also it is more difficult to get exact measurements from circular bases unlike square bases simply because a flat edge doesn't lay perfectly with a round edge. They should have made cutouts in the range template that fit around the base.

I got these awhile back, they're great imo:

https://art-of-war-studios-ltd.myshopify.com/collections/starwarsarmadacompatible/products/starwarsarmada-rangefinder-set

Also, Cog o Two has curved ones for individual speeds if one prefers that:

http://www.cogotwo.com/armada-compatible/armada-movement-rulers-detail

On 3/29/2019 at 1:02 AM, IronNerd said:

I am 100% here with Armada right now. If they don't do anything about squadrons, I think I'm going to sell off my collection and bow out.

It's sad though, because Armada has BY FAR my favorite capital ship system. I've played both BFG and Firestorm Armada a fair bit, and neither comes close to my enjoyment of capital ships in Armada. In fact, BFG re-made using the Armada system (impossible since the FFG/GW split) would instantly become my favorite game.

Edit: FWIW, I think the squadrons touching idea has the most merit. However, we would need a new way to track activation. The slider would be come a MASSIVE pain if we want to touching.

Ask FFG to make something similar to the @Darth Sanguis contraption as an official squadron upgrade kit! Then we can not be bothered by those squadron toggles and stiff squadron tokens that require us to lift the squadrons to turn. Stuff that can easily be left off the table and on the cards, would be good to do so.

I played 5/7 games against squad heavy opponents last week with 6 squads myself.

Even my longest match was over 30+ minutes before time.

On 3/30/2019 at 11:04 AM, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

@The Jabbawookie - I completely agree that the "no more than one tool" rule was entirely misguided by FFG and has increased the time players spend measuring and optimizing. I'm sure FFG assumed something like "yikes... look at all these people triangulating with multiple tools and taking forever with each squad... gotta stop that!" What they didn't realize was that people will still do the exact same thing, they'll just do it using proxy-measurements and near-endless sliding of the piece with multiple measurements as it settles into its final resting spot. And this has certainly increased rather than decreased the time spent fidgeting with squads, while not at all de-incentivizing people to be less optimized in their squadron play.

I think you're missing the point that @BrobaFett was making -- the game DEMANDS precision placement when playing at a non-casual level. Not just for squadrons, but for ships as well. You need to be able to dodge your opponent's best arc-lines, stay out of flak range, and visualize your ending position on the board. Most of my errors come when I place a squadron or notch a ship maneuver tool and utter the fatal phrase "That's probably good enough" -- which is the Armada equivalent of "Hold my beer." The reason that you are highlighting squadrons as the object of your ire is that NOBODY IS PLAYING MSU. You're coming to a tournament with 3-5 ships, two of which are flotillas most likely, and the number of turns where maneuvers are super-critical are limited. I guarantee that if your opponent had 6 or 7 CR90's on the board across from you, he would take just as long once those Vader Double Cymoons started to float into range.

I know that people are boiling Broba's response down to simply "git gud" - but that's not what he's really saying at all. The point is this - it's not optimizers who are the problem, it's inexperienced optimizers. Experience eliminates certain decision trees without having to be measured, for example. Experience will lead to more consideration of your next moves while waiting for your opponent to make their own. Experience allows you to not have to go back and forth with the maneuver tool and range tool to try to determine whether that one maneuver is where you want to go.

On 3/30/2019 at 11:04 AM, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

@Ling27 - I also agree here. Aces have added complexity to the squadron game (while clearly being imbalanced, in the sense that tourney results suggests aces are much better than generics). With only one of each unique ace, it's more crucial to get the positioning and order of activation of each piece just right (e.g. Howl goes in first) and then there are compounded range measurements and optimizations, since so many Ace Abilities are range-dependent (e.g. Howlrunner, Mithel, Dengar, Jan Ors, Jendon, etc.) so there's so many more distances to keep in mind and optimize and check.

I'm definitely on board with the complexity part of what you said here. You've definitely subtly inserted your own opinion about their balance, though. The data doesn't suggest that they're imbalanced -- the data on its own simply states that they are more-often taken -- and you have drawn a conclusion from that which is not directly supported, even if you aren't entirely wrong. I suspect that if you were to ask most players why they aren't taking 16 TIE fighters in their list is simply because they can't adequately command them before they started discussing inter-squadron synergy. Generally speaking, most heavy squadron lists I have encountered run between 8 (almost always) to 10 (much more rarely) individual squadrons. Even if aces were only SLIGHTLY better or the only difference was from the defense tokens, they would be included simply because when you can reasonably only use 8 squadrons, you want to take the best ones you can.

I will also add that the onus is on both players to speed up the squadron game. If you are going to sit on your side of the table and demand precision play from your opponent, then you do not get to be upset at the amount of time that it takes your opponent to attain said precision. If you say "oh, Mauler wants to hit Jan? Better not **** it up, dude..." then your opponent is going to play to the requirements you placed on him, and if it takes forever that's as much your fault as his. World-Championship-finals-level players are agreeing with each other that 1) Yes, Mauler can get anywhere he wants within distance-1 of Jan, and 2) allowing their opponents to use the distance-1 ruler to get the optimal placement of their squadrons. If your suggestion is to make this de-facto rule official, I entirely support it. 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.

From my experience now having been at worlds. Players at worlds are (usually) not stuck as much in analysis paralysis compared to newer players. If you are at worlds, you should know how to fly your fleet and move things with purpose. Sometimes that requires taking time to explore all the options and commit to a plan of attack. After that, usually there isn't much more crossroads of indecision. It's either you throw the dice you need or don't.

Edit:
Also **** Rasp. Well said.

5 hours ago, Muelmuel said:

I got these awhile back, they're great imo:

https://art-of-war-studios-ltd.myshopify.com/collections/starwarsarmadacompatible/products/starwarsarmada-rangefinder-set

Also, Cog o Two has curved ones for individual speeds if one prefers that:

http://www.cogotwo.com/armada-compatible/armada-movement-rulers-detail

Good products to say the least,

but again do we expect players just to have 3rd party items to play the game more effectively? Not saying that 3rd party items that make the game easier should be banned but if a 3rd party item becomes so necessary that every player has to acquire said item just to enjoy the game the accessibility of that game has decreased. This was something FFG should have had at the start of Armada.

6 hours ago, duck_bird said:

I played 5/7 games against squad heavy opponents last week with 6 squads myself.

Even my longest match was over 30+ minutes before time.

Slow coach

On 3/28/2019 at 6:29 PM, BrobaFett said:

* personal preference touted as fact, pro move 

This from a red! threadpost that is exclusively doing this... entertaining.

On 3/28/2019 at 6:29 PM, BrobaFett said:

By skill you mean a genetically determined predisposition toward being able to

Sports people also like to rely on their experience and diligence in training. It works together to create a thing we commonly call “skill“ ... you would probably call it gud.

On 3/28/2019 at 8:52 PM, BrobaFett said:

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.

Wow, you havent watched the previous worlds final have u. Those noobs really need to get more gud.. too slow they are.

On 3/30/2019 at 2:01 PM, Ginkapo said:

I already personally feel that its somewhat unfair that because of my occupation I can eye in movements to millimetres without premeasuring. If no one was allowed to premeasure then the game becomes about spatial awareness far more than tactics or decision making. I dont want to see the game go that way.

As people tend to throw the word around, worried it might magically disappear, have a definition:

A tactic (from the Ancient Greek τακτική taktike meaning "art of arrangement") is a conceptual action aiming at the achievement of a goal.

You can do that just fine without measuring. Just to waylay the argument:

Strategy (from Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, "art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship") is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty.

Also quite possible. Seriously, I dont think that it is tactical to think 10 minutes about the movement of one squad, actually the opposite.

Also, why I actually started the post: it doesnt have to become about spatial awareness, you might just play a little more defensive until you are sure to hit your opponent if you do not have trust in your spatial reasoning.