There has been a lot of talk recently on about Squadrons and their impact on the game. Whether that is to limit the number of aces that a fleet can take or to lower the squadron cap. My solution to this is a new format that my group has been trying. Even if you do not think that squadrons are an issue, this format, in my opinion, makes the game more fun and enjoyable.

In this format is to increase the total fleet limit to 450 points (calm down), but then to give players a point cap for ships and upgrade cards (this will be referred to as a ship cap going forward), similar to what we currently have for squadrons. The numbers that my group has been using has been a ship cap at 400 points and a squad cap at 140 points. . If you are having trouble imaging what that means, you can think of it as all current fleets can take a small fighter wing worth 50 points for free as long as they don’t hit the squad cap. Everyone who has tried this system has loved it so far. Way more than the current system

Why this solution? So, where I play, there are three ways that players build their fighter wings for a competitive list. Flying either max squadrons such as a Rieekan or Slone ball, no squads at all, or a token fighter wing, this is your Shara/Tycho, Ciena/Valen, etc. You almost never see squad balls in the 40-80 point range. When playing with these new rules I have notices a complete disappearance of fleets taking zero points of squadrons (no one builds a fleet of 400 points of ships, then takes a 50 point bid. They can but it would be not very optimal). Most fleets now take a minimum of 40 points of squadrons.

This format has solved a few issues with armada that I am sure some of you share as well. These include:

• Increases the use of squadrons. Squadrons are a huge part of the game and increasing their use is a good thing.
  

• You have more points to put into your ships without sacrificing your squadron game.
  

• Changes the way most players and ships play. For example, flotillas. No longer will they be Coms Net ships sitting in the back just passing tokens around and being activation padding. Now they are in the front lines using squadron commands pushing those 3 tie defenders you would have otherwise never taken. You also see ships that normally never doing squadron commands, doing them. Such as MC75s, Cymoons, Interdictors, MC80-BC, etc. This leads to a more varied token stack.
  

• An increase in the use of generic squadrons as well as an increase in the composition of squadron wings. I have seen an increase in the use of underused squads, such as E-wings, defenders, interceptors, tie advanced. You know that you will always come across enemy fighters, so you will not feel bad about taking a few fighters that specialize solely on killing enemy squads.
  

• A decrease in the effectiveness of aces. Maarek is not as effective anymore when he needs to spend and extra turn or two fighting his way through the 50 points of squadrons that most players are bring now. High health squads with braces or squads with scatter that were impossible to kill with flack before, now always have to deal with a few squads as well as flack.
  

• Curbs the power level of lists that build on the extremes of the squad point limit. Max squad lists now always have to, at minimum, deal with a small fighter coverage. No squad lists will now always have fighters bombing their ships.
  

• Making Star Wars Armada feel more like you are flying an armada. When I think of a space battle in Star Wars, I always think of capital ships fighting each other, but there is always the squadron fight that is going on in between them as well that is as important. Now you can fly 2 Star Destroyers with their support ships as well as 6 groups of tie fighters as a competitive list. To that you might say that you can already fly 2 SD with some ties, you just have to give up a support ship and/or some upgrades. But to that I would say that, because of the way activation advantage works, it is way more advantageous to drop the ties and add back the ship and the upgrades. With this system you can have both worlds.

With this format, there are a few things that I am sure you think will be to the detriment of the game. Let me try to answer those.

• Won’t this make the game take even longer that it already takes? No. My group has never not finished a game with in the 2.5 hour time limit. The thing in armada that takes the longest time, is the squadron game. So, the longest game possible in armada would be a max squad fleet Vs a max squad fleet. This format does increase the use of squadrons, but it does not increase the cap on squadrons (there is a 6 point increase to 140 points max, but you would not be able to add even one more of the cheapest squad, if you are already maxed at the standard 134). So it does not increase the length of the squadron phase. What it does allow max squad fleets to do though is MAYBE add ONE extra ship with the extra 50 points. The cheapest two ships that they can add would be a GR-75 (18pts) and a HH-TC (36pts) and this would be an extra 54 points so not possible. And lets be honest you already have at least one GR-75, so you’re not adding two. I have seen that most games, maybe take 15 mins longer, if that. But, nowhere close to exceeding 2.5 hours.
  

• Won’t this make flees that take max squads weaker? No. These fleets should always be built with and prepared to deal with a small fighter coverage and still win. Now instead of this being unusual to come across, it now becomes the standard that they must deal with. Which again is thematic. Big armadas always travel with at minimum a small fighter coverage.
  

• Wouldn’t this make fleet building more complicated? No. You already have to keep track of your total squad value and make sure that it does not exceed 134. This would just require you to keep track of your ship and upgrade value as well.

I do think that this format is good for the game. It makes it more fun to build lists as well as to play. It reins in the power of some powerful upgrades and combos. I do hope that you try this format. If you can’t play it right away, just try to list build with this format and look at the more varied lists that you come up with. Not only in the squadron realm, but also in the ships and upgrades that you use. I think that it is a good format to replace the current one. But let me know what you think.

I love this idea, for all of the reasons you gave. I'm already thinking how it could change the two recyclable TIE fighters in my SSD lists. Upgrade to interceptors? Expand to include some bombing threat? Squeeze in another ship upgrade or two? All of the above?

My favourite aspect is the expectation that every fleet will have some squadrons. As you say, they do in Star Wars.

I have the same issue with this that I had when people were trying to nerf squadrons into oblivion. There are people who like playing squadron-less, and you are taking that option out of their hands.

I like it, I've always found myself saying both "if only I didn't need some squads" and "if only I could fit a few more upgrades in."

I think with a system such as you've described, you might also see actual ship dedicated flak boats outside of the odd Flechette Raider.

I think it would also have the added effect of making Con Fire dials weighted more heavily, since losing the 50 point battle between squads means more.

2 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I have the same issue with this that I had when people were trying to nerf squadrons into oblivion. There are people who like playing squadron-less, and you are taking that option out of their hands.

What part of this is taking squadron-less out of people’s hands? You can still build a squadron-less fleet if you want. In fact you can use all 400 points and do it, while still taking a huge 50 point bid. No part of this format requires you to take squadrons

10 minutes ago, whokickmydog said:

What part of this is taking squadron-less out of people’s hands? You can still build a squadron-less fleet if you want. In fact you can use all 400 points and do it, while still taking a huge 50 point bid. No part of this format requires you to take squadrons

No you’re right, this isn’t a completely disingenuous argument at all, and totally deserves a real response.

7 minutes ago, whokickmydog said:

What part of this is taking squadron-less out of people’s hands? You can still build a squadron-less fleet if you want. In fact you can use all 400 points and do it, while still taking a huge 50 point bid. No part of this format requires you to take squadrons

But as you pointed out in your original post, no one does this because it's not optimal. I personally enjoy (sometimes) making a squadless fleet with little bid because it's comfortable going first (6 activations) or second (strong objectives).

31 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

But as you pointed out in your original post, no one does this because it's not optimal. I personally enjoy (sometimes) making a squadless fleet with little bid because it's comfortable going first (6 activations) or second (strong objectives).

Then you can take two rogue squadrons (Aggressor, YT-2400) and call it a day. You don’t have to worry about squadrons outside of those two self sufficient squads. That way if you don’t want anything to do with squadron commands, you can ignore them. And as such this format boosts the use of generic rogue squads that don’t see much use anymore.

12 minutes ago, whokickmydog said:

Then you can take two rogue squadrons (Aggressor, YT-2400) and call it a day. You don’t have to worry about squadrons outside of those two self sufficient squads. That way if you don’t want anything to do with squadron commands, you can ignore them. And as such this format boosts the use of generic rogue squads that don’t see much use anymore.

Except those rogues are food for anyone who hits the cap, and as such they'll get more value for their points than you will based on fleet comp.

Which is kind of like what we have now, except you can choose to minimize your squads (to zero) without being inefficient.

Don't get me wrong, I like new format ideas on principle because choices are fun. But replacing standard format with this would be a push for heavy squadrons.

2 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

This format has solved a few issues with armada that I am sure some of you share as well. These include:

• Increases the use of squadrons. Squadrons are a huge part of the game and increasing their use is a good thing.

What's the reasoning on increasing squadron use being a good thing? Players claiming there is "too little squadron use" appears to be a minute community around here.

2 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

• You have more points to put into your ships without sacrificing your squadron game.

In other words, the risks in building risky fleets is reduced. The "two-ship" build plays huge into squadrons and is incredibly strong. The downside is only having two ships. Giving them fifty more points that they can spend on ships drastically reduces the risk and completely throws the risk/reward out of balance. Now that same powerful fleet with a strong weakness has no weakness.

2 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

• ```Changes the way most players and ships play. For example, flotillas. No longer will they be Coms Net ships sitting in the back just passing tokens around and being activation padding. Now they are in the front lines using squadron commands pushing those 3 tie defenders you would have otherwise never taken. You also see ships that normally never doing squadron commands, doing them. Such as MC75s, Cymoons, Interdictors, MC80-BC, etc. This leads to a more varied token stack.

As in the example above, this actually allows for activation padding with flotillas. They don't stop being useful with Comms Net just because there are more squads on the board. And why is a more varied token stack necessarily good? If my Interdictor wasn't pushing squads before, there is little reason for them to be doing it now. Ships like the Interdictor still get less use out of the squad dial than other ships. Why waste a valuable dial just because squads are there?

2 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

An increase in the use of generic squadrons as well as an increase in the composition of squadron wings. I have seen an increase in the use of underused squads, such as E-wings, defenders, interceptors, tie advanced. You know that you will always come across enemy fighters, so you will not feel bad about taking a few fighters that specialize solely on killing enemy squads.

I don't get this at all. If I take a squadless fleet now, then give it 50 points of "free" squadrons, why would these necessarily be generics? They might be, but it's just as likely to be a Biggs Ball to tank damage. A free 50 points? That's well on the way to MMJ, which will do far more reliable damage against ships than an equivalent number of points in generics.

2 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

A decrease in the effectiveness of aces. Maarek is not as effective anymore when he needs to spend and extra turn or two fighting his way through the 50 points of squadrons that most players are bring now. High health squads with braces or squads with scatter that were impossible to kill with flack before, now always have to deal with a few squads as well as flack.

Maybe. The squadron limit was only raised by 6 points. The Aces might die in more matches, but they won't die any more than they do now in heavy squad vs heavy squad or heavy squad vs medium squad. It just means there aren't any matches where there are no squads. Right now you could easily go through a full tournament and never play a squadronless fleet. Does that make your aces less effective? Not really.

2 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

Curbs the power level of lists that build on the extremes of the squad point limit. Max squad lists now always have to, at minimum, deal with a small fighter coverage. No squad lists will now always have fighters bombing their ships.

This doesn't curb the power level at all. It adds to it. Now instead of risking going squadless to get more ships and upgrades, I can do both! No downside! Now instead of risking going full squads and having minimal ship firepower, I can have the best of both worlds. This reduces the risk, not the power level.

2 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

Making Star Wars Armada feel more like you are flying an armada. When I think of a space battle in Star Wars, I always think of capital ships fighting each other, but there is always the squadron fight that is going on in between them as well that is as important. Now you can fly 2 Star Destroyers with their support ships as well as 6 groups of tie fighters as a competitive list. To that you might say that you can already fly 2 SD with some ties, you just have to give up a support ship and/or some upgrades. But to that I would say that, because of the way activation advantage works, it is way more advantageous to drop the ties and add back the ship and the upgrades. With this system you can have both worlds.

Why not just play a Sector Fleet game? 600+ points, more overall squads, easier to fit in. Or a Task Force game? No squad limit.

I'm glad that you're enjoying this format. You do you. After all this is just plastic spaceships and pew pew noises. I just don't think the way things panned out in your play group would be the same way it pans out in the community as a whole. It's always good to keep in mind that most game elements were designed and play tested for balance at 400/134. Fiddling with that, even in small amounts, can skew the game in bad ways.

47 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Except those rogues are food for anyone who hits the cap, and as such they'll get more value for their points than you will based on fleet comp.

Which is kind of like what we have now, except you can choose to minimize your squads (to zero) without being inefficient.

Don't get me wrong, I like new format ideas on principle because choices are fun. But replacing standard format with this would be a push for heavy squadrons.

I understand what you are saying when you say that those rogues are just food for anyone going max squads. You’re just giving them free points. But most squad-less fleets have to bring some sort of apparatus (example kallus raider) to deal with max squads. Remember in this format, Players cannot bring extra squads, the squad cap is not raised. So the max squad ball that they face now is the same one that they face in this format. So that apparatus for dealing with the squads is the same. It will not be stressed anymore than it is, because there is no extra squads. The player with the two rogues in turn will not just send their two squads to their death right into the ball. You would send them in when you can flack as well. This leads to a better trade for the player with the two rogues than they would normally.

Think of it like this. The person who benefits most in the squad game from this change is the fleet that was previously squadron-less. This is because the max squad fleet get no benefit in this format. They keep the same squads (they might upgrade one squad with that extra 6 points, but I digress). The person who was previously squadron-less is able to bluster their anti-squad presence by adding a few anti squad squads they could not previously add. If you were to say that you’re previously squadron-less fleet brought no anti squad tech, then I would say that that is way less efficient than adding the new squads in this new formant. What the squadron-less fleet will be facing that is new, is a max squadron fleet with an upgraded ship or some extra upgrades. This is due to the max squadron fleet not being able to but new squads with the extra 50 points so they put it into their ships. The squadron-less fleet will then still see that they have an advantage in the ship fight as they have more points in their ships.

What this formant aims to equalize the power levels that fleets get when they build to the extremes. The power level that max squad fleets get when they play fleets with the minimum level of squads is reduced as these fleets now have more points to spend on anti-squadron tech in the form of fighters. The ship power level that fleets get when they go all in on ships is reduced when they go up against a fleet that have put the least amount of points into ships as possible as they wanted to take max squads because these fleets have an extra 50 points to put into their ships.

In regards to you thinking that this will be a push to heavy squadron let me tell you what I have noticed in my scene. Yes there is an increase in the average number of squadrons that fleets take. Obviously this is due to the lack of squadron less fleets. But there has not been an increase in the amount of fleets that take max squads, there seems to be a decrease. This is due to the face that now since All players are bringing in squadrons, you see that most players at minimum bring a dedicated anti-squad, squadron ball. An example of this is Howl, 3 interceptors, and two copies of reserve hanger deck. 55 points that will seriously hinder the efforts of a max squadron squad. Howl will not win, but the rest of her fleet will hopefully trade up while the full squad ball is Occupied with her. Since there is an uptick of more fleets with a small fighter coverage that this, there in turn is a decrease in the effectiveness of max squadron lists, so it is not beneficial to bring them. So you see less people bringing them. You a bigger investment in ships and large squad balls, if the player wants to bring them are around the 120 mark, not 140 mark. This is also closer to the 25% cap the sector fleets play at, which feels like the perfect balance to me.

31 minutes ago, whokickmydog said:

But most squad-less fleets have to bring some sort of apparatus (example kallus raider) to deal with max squads. Remember in this format, Players cannot bring extra squads, the squad cap is not raised. So the max squad ball that they face now is the same one that they face in this format. So that apparatus for dealing with the squads is the same.

My squadless fleets almost entirely use the apparatus of having my ships kill their ships. No bells, no whistles, just 6-7 activations, Demolisher, and a 25 point bid. When I get a win against a carrier fleet, it's because my immediate destructive power against ships outweighed their immediate destructive power against ships.

On my end, having 2 more rogues does nothing for that.

The carrier fleet gets the cost of a CR90/Corvus lifeboat to not get tabled. Or to add Yavaris if they didn't have it, or to upgrade a Pelta to an MC80. That's a huge deal.

31 minutes ago, whokickmydog said:

In regards to you thinking that this will be a push to heavy squadron let me tell you what I have noticed in my scene. Yes there is an increase in the average number of squadrons that fleets take. Obviously this is due to the lack of squadron less fleets. But there has not been an increase in the amount of fleets that take max squads, there seems to be a decrease. This is due to the face that now since All players are bringing in squadrons, you see that most players at minimum bring a dedicated anti-squad, squadron ball. An example of this is Howl, 3 interceptors, and two copies of reserve hanger deck. 55 points that will seriously hinder the efforts of a max squadron squad. Howl will not win, but the rest of her fleet will hopefully trade up while the full squad ball is Occupied with her. Since there is an uptick of more fleets with a small fighter coverage that this, there in turn is a decrease in the effectiveness of max squadron lists, so it is not beneficial to bring them. So you see less people bringing them. You a bigger investment in ships and large squad balls, if the player wants to bring them are around the 120 mark, not 140 mark. This is also closer to the 25% cap the sector fleets play at, which feels like the perfect balance to me.

The problem I have with this is it ignores the very reason we don't see SFCs right now. Against LFCs, they don't act as an effective speed bump because of how quickly the squadron game snowballs (Squall, Intel, and Sloane are probably the primary causes.) Forcing players to take either an SFC or LFC won't change that.

We have a beautiful set of test cases in the form of sector fleet rules. The cap for squads scales differently, and it's great. The game I remember most keenly is the one where I traded 68 points of aces for 11 TIE interceptors, with second player. I had max squads. He did not.

31 minutes ago, whokickmydog said:

If you were to say that you’re previously squadron-less fleet brought no anti squad tech, then I would say that that is way less efficient than adding the new squads in this new formant.

That's my point exactly.

I don't object to increasing the format to 450 points. What I do object to is a cap on how I build my fleets, that hurts my playstyle, because someone else thinks it's fun or immersive.

@whokickmydog I don't doubt it's fun to play. If the TO of my local store said that's how we're playing the next tournament (as a one-off event) I wouldn't object. I love trying new things. But as Jabba and others pointed out, I think it cramps certain play styles.

As for a few TIEs and Reserve Hangar Deck; if I'm planning to go squadless, maybe I'd rather leave the offensive retrofit for proximity mines or boarding troopers or Darth Vader.

I’m not sure this actually fixes anything except the self-inflicted perception that every minis gamer has that “I just need a few more points to do everything I want.”

That perception will just shift to “if I had 460 points I could do all that I wanted.

it also feels like a buff to Sloane who doesn’t need it.

As a replacement for standard play, going to vote no.

However, as another optional way to play, I love it!

19 hours ago, Astrodar said:

Why not just play a Sector Fleet game? 600+ points, more overall squads, easier to fit in. Or a Task Force game? No squad limit.

Ugh please NEVER EVER say Task force and no squad limit EVER AGAIN. RITR and no squad yes, but my beautiful Task Force? With unlimited dumb squads? I'd rather you smear poop on a star destroyer and take it to a tournament.

Mass squads are dumb and a multiplicative focus fire nightmare that begs the question of if game design ever evolved past RPS and focus fire.

----

to OP I don't understand your new format. Exactly what is it?

53 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Ugh please NEVER EVER say Task force and no squad limit EVER AGAIN. RITR and no squad yes, but my beautiful Task Force?

Task Force and no squad limit.

I realize that you called your alternative format Task Force before RITR was released, but Task Force is the official name of the variant in RITR. RITR is the campaign, Task Force is the format. And there is no limit to squads as long as you stick to the rest of the fleet building rules.

On 2/11/2020 at 7:41 PM, whokickmydog said:

What part of this is taking squadron-less out of people’s hands? You can still build a squadron-less fleet if you want. In fact you can use all 400 points and do it, while still taking a huge 50 point bid. No part of this format requires you to take squadrons

On 2/11/2020 at 6:31 PM, whokickmydog said:

When playing with these new rules I have notices a complete disappearance of fleets taking zero points of squadrons (no one builds a fleet of 400 points of ships, then takes a 50 point bid. They can but it would be not very optimal).

Choose one

In general I understand the rationale behind the idea, however it de facto promotes the following fleets:

1. Max squad fleets: extra 50 points to spend on ships

2. Squadless/low squadron fleets that rely on winning bidding war: load fleet to full 400 points, throw 2 Tie Fighters/Z95s for deployment and your first player is secured.

3. Fleets tuned up for killing squads: there are always squadrons to kill to bump up MoV.

I don't think this was your intention with this proposal.

@Blail Blerg

Task Force by official definition has no squad limit.

22 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

As a replacement for standard play, going to vote no.

However, as another optional way to play, I love it!

Wait, we get to change official standard play based on forum votes?! That explains all the arguing...

On 2/11/2020 at 10:01 PM, The Jabbawookie said:

The problem I have with this is it ignores the very reason we don't see SFCs right now. Against LFCs, they don't act as an effective speed bump because of how quickly the squadron game snowballs (Squall, Intel, and Sloane are probably the primary causes.) Forcing players to take either an SFC or LFC won't change that.

What are "SFC" and "LFC"?

3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

What are "SFC" and "LFC"?

Small and Large Fighter Coverage. SFC being stuff like Shara/Tycho or Ciena/Valen, LFC being maxed out fighter wings.

Re SFC and LFC:

https://cannotgetyourshipout.blogspot.com/p/squadrons-index.html?m=1

Happy birthday!

4 hours ago, Tayloraj100 said:

Wait, we get to change official standard play based on forum votes?! That explains all the arguing...

It's worse than that, once it's changed everyone has to play by the new rules or the Forum Police visit their houses and nail their front door shut.

3 hours ago, flatpackhamster said:

It's worse than that, once it's changed everyone has to play by the new rules or the Forum Police visit their houses and nail their front door shut.

we also cover any other doors in honey / syrup so their hands get all sticky