Pretty straight forward here, but compared to the Munificent, I don't seem to see the Acclamator as being that good. Most of the battle reports I've watched result in Republic defeats and it seems to struggle against the competition. Anyone have any thoughts?

23 minutes ago, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

Pretty straight forward here, but compared to the Munificent, I don't seem to see the Acclamator as being that good. Most of the battle reports I've watched result in Republic defeats and it seems to struggle against the competition. Anyone have any thoughts?

Much like it's cousin the VSD, you need to have a plan with Acclamators. I see Munificents being much more lax in their planning due to the balanced loadout they have.

The Acclamator does have a hard time standing on its own and thus needs to lean into GAR's faction elements of teamwork and synergy to pull through. If you're funning them with Obi-wan pick up expert shield techs. If you're running with Bail make sure to have some of his tokens are engineering and consider maybe shield projector consulors.

13 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Much like it's cousin the VSD, you need to have a plan with Acclamators. I see Munificents being much more lax in their planning due to the balanced loadout they have.

Agreed, you MUST know where to point it and have a plan how it will affect the battlefield, squad pusher, or ordinance platform. You probably want to make it specialized into one category otherwise it's probably not worth the points for a ship you can easily outmaneuver. I think it just leans into that imperial vein of specialization, whereas the munificent is just able to do anything well, and be just used in any role battle-dependent like a better assault frigate. Find that niche, and I think it is quite good, though probably not better than a Muni. (Tried it with ARCs and hyperspace rings/boosted/flight commander and boy that was fun...)

Yes.

So far, I found it to be a solid ship in its own right. For me the question is different - what does Muni need to make it good as I find its firepower to be underwhelming for the points.

The Acclamator is basically a faster, weaker Victory SD, and suffers from the usual Star Destroyer problem: Its powerful front arc is a double-edged sword.

In my first game against the Republic, my Munificent Comms Frigate was one-shotted by an Acclamator at close range (after its front shields were depleted from earlier attacks). And my Star Frigate was nearly killed by another Acclamator that kept double-arcing from its side and rear arcs. The Acclamator can't be under-estimated.

The Acclamator also benefits from being familiar to Imperial players, because the Acc-1 is similar to a ISD-1/VSD-1 hybrid, with a Weapons Team, 2 Off. Retrofits, an Ordnance and Turbolaser slot; and the Acc-2 is similar to a ISD-2/VSD-1, with its Weapons Team and Def. Retrofit. That allows Imperial veterans to use similar loadouts on the Acclamator.

However, the Acclamator can be defeated if your opponent knows how to avoid its strengths and exploit its weaknesses -- admittedly, fairly standard advice for any ship.

The Acclamator's primary weakness is its speed coupled with its lack of maneuverability. I've seen Acclamators fly off the table 3 times so far and it even happened to me once. Choosing Bail Organa as your Commander can mitigate this problem by providing the desperately needed Nav dials; just remember to save Bail's Nav dials for your Acclamators to use in the later rounds, instead of using them up removing Dooku's Raid tokens.

Another weakness of the Acclamator is that it has a Salvo token instead of a 2nd Redirect. I understand why the Munificent has those defense tokens, but it doesn't make as much sense for the Acclamator because its rear arc is a red and a black die, instead of 2 red. This is a major problem in the later rounds, when the Acclamator will probably be running away from enemy ships, and it can only attack and Salvo with 1 red die. I've seen many Acclamators get destroyed trying run away from Munificents by making the mistake of attacking and getting Salvo-ed.

The Acclamator is a decent ship but it has a steeper learning curve and is less forgiving than the Separatist's medium ship. That's why in these early days of Clone Wars Armada, the Acclamator appears to be worse than the Munificent.

Just give it time. Practice makes perfect. 😉

2 hours ago, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

Pretty straight forward here, but compared to the Munificent, I don't seem to see the Acclamator as being that good. Most of the battle reports I've watched result in Republic defeats and it seems to struggle against the competition. Anyone have any thoughts?

It looks like some folks are saying it's good, but based on Youtube batreps it seems like the Republic gets stomped 100% of the time. I invested in Republic as my faction so I hope that it's not doomed to eternal humiliation.

43 minutes ago, Captain Corvid said:

The Acclamator is basically a faster, weaker Victory SD, and suffers from the usual Star Destroyer problem: Its powerful front arc is a double-edged sword.

In my first game against the Republic, my Munificent Comms Frigate was one-shotted by an Acclamator at close range (after its front shields were depleted from earlier attacks). And my Star Frigate was nearly killed by another Acclamator that kept double-arcing from its side and rear arcs. The Acclamator can't be under-estimated.

That isn't really a one shot if it lacks shields.

Funny, when it was first announced people were losing their **** and saying it singlehandedly power crept the OT factions out of the game.

2 hours ago, TallGiraffe said:

That isn't really a one shot if it lacks shields.

Maybe not, but it still hurt. 😖

I give it a suckage rating of A-.

If the Acclamator had an evade instead of a salvo token its suckage rating would be B+, and if that godawful maneuver chart was less godawful it would get a suckage rating of C.

Id take the acclamator over the victory every day of the week for a million years. Bothvariants are flexible and well (ie much better than tne vic) costed.

And we are still basically in core set wars.

But the acc is only a medium. In most battles ive watched its ended up in an attrition war which means it will die pretty quick considering the damage a 400 point fleet can dish out. Even when i play isd2s, i only bank on one serious turn under fire before i bug out at speed 3. I think the next evolution of acclamator tactics is either playing a lot more cagey as a carrier, or using bail navs and engs to get in, strike hard with front arc, then navto speed 3 and escape. Dont get trapped in front of multiple munificents. Rolling along straight in pumping squadrons will just get you dead.

I was also thinking about the fact that given the Venator’s status as both a heavy carrier and to a degree a more efficient weapons platform than the Acclamator I worry that the Venator is going to make almost no one want to play the Acclamator since it’ll seem so lacking.

1 hour ago, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

I was also thinking about the fact that given the Venator’s status as both a heavy carrier and to a degree a more efficient weapons platform than the Acclamator I worry that the Venator is going to make almost no one want to play the Acclamator since it’ll seem so lacking.

The Armada Wave 2 ISD/VSD problem all over again you mean. I dont think it willl happen tho.

2 hours ago, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

I was also thinking about the fact that given the Venator’s status as both a heavy carrier and to a degree a more efficient weapons platform than the Acclamator I worry that the Venator is going to make almost no one want to play the Acclamator since it’ll seem so lacking.

Points difference would solve that - if you can get 3 Acclamators for 2 Venators, for example, as opposed to the Vic2 vs ISD1 where you'd need 4Vic2s for 3 ISDs.

5 minutes ago, flatpackhamster said:

Points difference would solve that - if you can get 3 Acclamators for 2 Venators, for example, as opposed to the Vic2 vs ISD1 where you'd need 4Vic2s for 3 ISDs.

Trick there will be the need to release an individual expansion for the Acclamator because I bought two core sets for both republic and separatist and there is no way I am buying a third republic one just for one more Acclamator.

8 hours ago, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

I was also thinking about the fact that given the Venator’s status as both a heavy carrier and to a degree a more efficient weapons platform than the Acclamator I worry that the Venator is going to make almost no one want to play the Acclamator since it’ll seem so lacking.

I expect that, like the Acclamator, there will be a Carrier version and Destroyer version of the Venator. Perhaps the Venator-Carrier won't have 2 Off. Retrofit slots, so if you needed them both -- for example, to equip Hyperspace Rings and Boosted Comms -- you'd opt for the Acclamator.

I expect the Venator will be a red and blue dice ship, so it'll be superior at medium-long range, whereas the Acclamator has greater damage potential at close range.

Also, sometimes you simply won't be able to afford a Venator (or a 2nd Venator), so the Acclamator provides that cheaper option.

I don't think the Acclamator is in danger of becoming immediately obsolete when the Venator is released, repeating what happened to the Victory SD. The problem with the Victory was that it had poor speed and maneuverability, and it was years before FFG "fixed" it with the Harrow ship title. Also, the Victory-II was ridiculously over-priced. In comparison, the Acclamator is a well-rounded ship: Good at multiple things, but not great at anything. It's certainly not as niche as a Quasar Fire or Onager; some players will say that's a good thing while others will say it's bad. I think it makes more sense to release an affordable, all-round good ship early in Clone Wars Armada, and the expensive and/or specialty ships later.

1 hour ago, Captain Corvid said:

I expect that, like the Acclamator, there will be a Carrier version and Destroyer version of the Venator. Perhaps the Venator-Carrier won't have 2 Off. Retrofit slots, so if you needed them both -- for example, to equip Hyperspace Rings and Boosted Comms -- you'd opt for the Acclamator.

I expect the Venator will be a red and blue dice ship, so it'll be superior at medium-long range, whereas the Acclamator has greater damage potential at close range.

Also, sometimes you simply won't be able to afford a Venator (or a 2nd Venator), so the Acclamator provides that cheaper option.

I don't think the Acclamator is in danger of becoming immediately obsolete when the Venator is released, repeating what happened to the Victory SD. The problem with the Victory was that it had poor speed and maneuverability, and it was years before FFG "fixed" it with the Harrow ship title. Also, the Victory-II was ridiculously over-priced. In comparison, the Acclamator is a well-rounded ship: Good at multiple things, but not great at anything. It's certainly not as niche as a Quasar Fire or Onager; some players will say that's a good thing while others will say it's bad. I think it makes more sense to release an affordable, all-round good ship early in Clone Wars Armada, and the expensive and/or specialty ships later.

The 2 titles seem to indicate that it's not going anywhere any time soon; the clam is a good ship