5 hours ago, xero989 said:I feel the Republic will lean quite heavily on squadrons more so than any other faction.
Which is why, as an exclusively Imperial player, I am looking forward to playing the Republic. A faction with an aesthetic I prefer and squadrons that can be multi role.
9 hours ago, geek19 said:Isn't that the Empire? You pay out the butt for ISDs and Super Star Destroyers but they're the strongest in the game when upgraded well.
Yes. But I think they could push it even further. You 'can' play triple cymoon, I would be okay with not being able to play triple Venator. They did this a bit with the Starhawk already but I would rather it was a Republic thing more than a New Republic thing.
6 hours ago, zingerwhip said:I would be okay with not being able to play triple Venator.
What do you mean by "can"? You most certainly will be able to play triple Venator since it is a scaled down ISD on every metric except carrying capability. So it will very likely be cheaper than the ISDs variants. So you can play three of them, but than you wont be able to make use of their speciality, their carrying capability.
Edited by LordCola22 hours ago, zingerwhip said:My wish for GAR is very expensive super ships. They were purpose built and crewed by lifetime trained, soldiers and crewman clones led by Jedi. After the Clone War the Empire went to cheap TIE fighters, why not cheaper capital ships as well? They had to build way more of them for the pacification of a galaxy so corners were cut? As we have said the tech in star wars doesn't change much, just tactics because of different leaders. Let the Republic line ships be awesome, but make us pay for them!
The GAR's ships were actually purpose built for symmetrical warfare. The Empire on the other hand uses its ships mainly as counter insurgency and pacification vessels against significantly weaker foes. So there might be something in the republic being quality over quantity, not because of (in universe) more expensive assets, but because of using ones that are better for Armada's battle situations. That would mainly apply to per tonnage combat strength, still making the ISD "better" than the Venator. If you compare these two, the former is kind of focused on quality, it's effectiveness being higher than those of an ISD downscaled to its size.
9 hours ago, LennoxPoodle said:The GAR's ships were actually purpose built for symmetrical warfare. The Empire on the other hand uses its ships mainly as counter insurgency and pacification vessels against significantly weaker foes.
You are right, that is what the ISD was mainly used for. However, that is not what the Empire build. The ISD 2 is as much a purpose build warship as it gets. The ships are a little difficult to compare because their focus on different aspects, but if you were to scale the Venator up to ISD size and have them fight each other by themselves, without fighters, the ISD would absolutely demolish the Venator. It's not even a fight. The ISD 2 was purpose build for ship to ship combat. It has much more and stronger anti capital ship weaponry than a scaled up Venator and it would have a significant advantage in structural integrity as the Venator has theses vast and empty hangers that make for big structural weak points. The Venator was just simply not mainly build for ship to ship combat, where as the ISD was. Now if you were to fill both ships (the ISD and the scaled up Venator) hangers with their standard fighter complement you would have much more of a balanced battle on hand. But translated into Armada that should mean the the strength and cost of these ships should be equal if you take an ISD with some squads and a scaled up Venator with a lot of squads. If we now take the squads out to see the ship point cost we come to the conclusion that the scaled up Venator still has to be cheaper than an ISD and to come back to "reality" you still have to scale down the Venator to actual Venator size.
Any predictions on the possibility of new squadron keywords? Or do you think they'll pull from the current list ? With the Jedi being a key story element of the prequels, I wonder if they'll introduce something akin to X-Wing's "Force" upgrade type. Just a thought!
3 hours ago, Rmcarrier1 said:Any predictions on the possibility of new squadron keywords? Or do you think they'll pull from the current list ? With the Jedi being a key story element of the prequels, I wonder if they'll introduce something akin to X-Wing's "Force" upgrade type. Just a thought!
I think for the most part they will pull from the current list.
As for new keywords, i expect 2 something like
FORCE: while attacking or defending, you may reroll/make the attacker reroll 1 dice.
Droid: while at distance 1-3 of a friendly ship, you may add 1 blue die to your antisquad armament (you get the meaning)
im imagining droid fighters costing like 3pts a piece but only having 1 blue die for attack and 2 hull, would really differentiate the faction in terms of squadrons in that there may be tonnes of them, but even ships have a chance at dropping them in one shot.
4 hours ago, DrakonLord said:im imagining droid fighters costing like 3pts a piece but only having 1 blue die for attack and 2 hull, would really differentiate the faction in terms of squadrons in that there may be tonnes of them, but even ships have a chance at dropping them in one shot.
If they would do that we would need to get an overhaul of deployment rules. If 30 pts. would be worth 5 deployments I would expect to see tons of droid fighters just for deployment spam ...
44 minutes ago, Triangular said:If they would do that we would need to get an overhaul of deployment rules. If 30 pts. would be worth 5 deployments I would expect to see tons of droid fighters just for deployment spam ...
Just add a rule that droids can't be deployed in the deployment phase and have to drop out of a build in rapid launch bay.
I'm not sure if they would add a dedicated force keyword, but that the force would rather be integrated into the squadrons unique abilities much like Vader/Luke currently having their force enhanced abilities represented by their increased stats.
I imagine a droid keyword would allow 2 units to activate per 1 squad value.
With your generic droid squad even weaker than your regular TIE. Some sort of droid control upgrade would add to the thematic elements, ie: your control ship goes down and your fighters can only fight, not move (or something)
11 hours ago, Rmcarrier1 said:Any predictions on the possibility of new squadron keywords? Or do you think they'll pull from the current list ? With the Jedi being a key story element of the prequels, I wonder if they'll introduce something akin to X-Wing's "Force" upgrade type. Just a thought!
@>kkj and I had our own thoughts on Clone Wars and created our own set before it was announced...
Maybe you‘ve had a look at it already but we had the same idea on new keywords/abilities and I would love to see FFG introduce FORCE or something similar to Armada.
On 1/11/2020 at 10:10 AM, thestag said:Of course this only works if the republic/CIS ships are properly under powered compared to their empire/rebel counterparts, which is unlikely since this is a business and not a hobby...
Yea that wont happen cause they'll make it so u can play GCW factions vs Prequel factions which would be no fun/good if the prequel factions are underpowered compared to the GCW factions
5 hours ago, lunitic501 said:Yea that wont happen cause they'll make it so u can play GCW factions vs Prequel factions which would be no fun/good if the prequel factions are underpowered compared to the GCW factions
To be fair, a faction could make up for its power deficiency by being able to field more units within a given points total.
11 hours ago, Triangular said:If they would do that we would need to get an overhaul of deployment rules. If 30 pts. would be worth 5 deployments I would expect to see tons of droid fighters just for deployment spam ...
An overhaul or deployment rules is hardly needed, just an additional rule "when deploying droid fighters, deploy 4 at a time instead of 2"
51 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:An overhaul or deployment rules is hardly needed, just an additional rule "when deploying droid fighters, deploy 4 at a time instead of 2"
Technically, an “addition to” can be considered an “overhaul (change) of” ... 😁
4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:Technically, an “addition to” can be considered an “overhaul (change) of” ... 😁
Technically correct, the best kind of correct 😂
On 1/10/2020 at 1:13 PM, TallGiraffe said:It isn't the dual faction part that is the problem. It is the price. It is a big turn off to people when they see they have to get a 100$ box to start a game.
I'm not sure if splitting it would help the price.
You still need the dice, measuring tools, movement tools, damage deck, tokens, terrain, and probably more than 1/2 the cards in each starter. You cut out 1 medium model or 2 small models and some squads along with a couple faction specific cards. So that drops your $100 box to $80, maybe $70 if you are lucky. But now for a couple people to buy in and try the game out you need to spend a minimum of $140-$160 instead of $100....whoops. Faction specific starters would end up being more expensive for a lot of players, and less expensive to only a few people.
You'd also have to deal with the confusion from a non-self contained game. Armada isn't really aimed at the hardcore miniature crowd, and the going trend for the casual gamer is to sell them starter boxes that contain everything they need. When you start selling half of what you need, people end up confused and upset as they discover their mistake, or receive a gift from a relative that doesn't even give them enough material to play the game.
Making 3 flavors (combined, and 2 faction specific) is a bad idea from FFGs standpoint. 3 SKUs instead of 1 means increased costs and logistical nightmares. Armada just isn't popular enough to warrant that expense and headache.
To counteract my own point, weaker, cheaper ships might actually do something very interesting and thematic for the Clone Wars. That conflict is all out war, which means that its nature compared to the GCW is better represented by the larger fleets achieved in this way. On the other side, factions that need more models are more expensive and thus less likely to attract new players.
5 hours ago, LennoxPoodle said:To counteract my own point, weaker, cheaper ships might actually do something very interesting and thematic for the Clone Wars. That conflict is all out war, which means that its nature compared to the GCW is better represented by the larger fleets achieved in this way. On the other side, factions that need more models are more expensive and thus less likely to attract new players.
I like the idea of the clone wars ships being cheap, to me it makes sense because there wasn’t just one Venator in most battles. Although personally, when we get clone wars. I’m going to be buying so many ships! I love the GCW but clone wars to me is more fun and exciting and I’ll be buying thousands and thousands dollars worth of content from this era. I get that new players may see that and be hesitant but I also know there’ll be clone wars enthusiasts that’ll have no problem spending a lot on this era
Through most of the clone wars cartoon Venators were often seen in 3s. This does lean towards perhaps they should be weaker. I guess that may cause activation issues.
One of the Thrawn novels (which are canon?) mentions that imperial turbolasers are much improved over Republic guns.
5 minutes ago, ISD Avenger said:One of the Thrawn novels (which are canon?) mentions that imperial turbolasers are much improved over Republic guns.
Really? I can't remember that line. Could you provide a quote?
3 hours ago, LordCola said:Really? I can't remember that line. Could you provide a quote?
Not without wading through the book again. I think it was the first one, of the new lot. Now I’m doubting myself.
Someone must have seen it... anyone...? Tell me I’m not imagining things.
11 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:Not without wading through the book again. I think it was the first one, of the new lot. Now I’m doubting myself.
Someone must have seen it... anyone...? Tell me I’m not imagining things.
It’s not QUITE that straightforward
as Ensign Vanto is commenting on Vulture Droids vs an Arquitens, and how blaster cannons don’t stack up against modern turbolasers.
As much as it insinuates Tgat the technology has improved, it’s also flatly staying that the tactics used have changed just as much if not more, and sone skills had been forgotten.
Edited by Drasnighta1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:It’s not QUITE that straightforward
as Ensign Vanto is commenting on Vulture Droids vs an Arquitens, and how blaster cannons don’t stack up against modern turbolasers.
As much as it insinuates Tgat the technology has improved, it’s also flatly staying that the tactics used have changed just as much if not more, and sone skills had been forgotten.
It’s also the view of a fairly fresh Imperial officer who was probably told a lot about the superiority of the Imperial Navy.