Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NewTroski

  1. Quick recap of stuff I've posted and a few new ideas: Flat base - Other ships would actually be allowed to move onto the base of the SSD. The stands for the model would still be collide-able and be special hit locations - hangar for the front and bridge for the back. Only ships that are on the base can target these special locations. Multiple arcs - Assuming a two-base format ala XWM Epic, I think the SSD should have at least 7 arcs, possibly as high as 11. I like the idea of splitting the front down the middle. If necessary, it might also have separate firing arcs that funnel down to the same shield section. Commands - Front Command 2, Back 4. Perhaps an additional rule to represent the difficulty in coordinating things on such a large vessel. If one of the sections is disabled, maybe the other section can continue, but it doesn't get any new commands. It can only use tokens that were in reserve. Movement - Attach the nav tool somewhere in the middle to avoid "tail-whip". Navigate token required to move at all, ship default back to speed 0 (which is an issue because no defense tokens).
  2. It is a matter of opinion, I recognize that and you don't need to get insulting about it. The thing is, the viewpoint that the SSD will never fit in Armada has been made abundantly clear at this point. There's really nothing more to say about it, because it is a matter of opinion. I don't want to stifle free speech, but what else is there to discuss if you don't think it will ever work? I am seriously asking, because it seems like a dead-end conversation. If you say, "I don't think it will work, that's my personal opinion, I have read the ideas and my opinion has not changed, nor do I expect it to." Whelp, ok. I guess the conversation is over. For you. For the people that think the SSD could work, though, there is still productive discussion to be had. We have put forth numerous ideas about movement, firing arcs, hull zones, dice, bases, etc.
  3. I like this idea as well, but it could cause balance issues. I think there would need to be a hard limit on these like for fighters, something like "No more than X fleet points can be acquired from convoy ships"
  4. None of the game stats are 100% accurate representations of the "real thing". And what is the "real thing"? The movies, comics, and books sometimes contradict each other. There are inconsistencies in the movies themselves. All of the setting and story information in the world can be considered (and most of it probably is), but at some point somebody has to draw a line and say, "Well, this is how it is going to work in the game". This is where compromises are made, like how ion guns and missiles are represented. Is there really only room for two squads of crew on a VSD? Of course not, but those crew slots are an abstract representation of the Victory's abilities in order to make a balanced and fun game piece for a plastic toy space ship game.
  5. The BFF-1 Bulk Freighter is 120m and the Container Transport is 200m, so right in the range for the small ship base. There's also a Freighter Type C from XW:A at 190m. We saw the GR-75 flying in formation with other small craft in ESB, so I think the squadron base will be fine for the 90m and smaller. Maybe a two prong flight stand instead of three. Good point about being attacked by battery armament though, maybe that could be a keyword? Large Target - This squadron may be targeted by the enemy's battery or squadron dice. [Crit Icon] count as damage (Crit Effects still not resolved)
  6. I understand it quite well, actually. Did you read and understand my post on logarithmic scales? Is there anything there that you would like to refute? If I made an error in my math, please correct me.
  7. Yes please! The anti-SSD people seem so confrontational to me. It also seems like they completely ignore the many reasonable ideas presented for how an SSD could work and just vent their spleen. Is it just me? Am I taking crazy pills? Back on point: Thank you, Eyeless, for putting something out there. It seems like you're stat-ing it out as a normal base ship. I think the SSD would have to be on something like an Epic XWM base, with two sections. My current idea is that it will have a special flat base, so that other ships can move over it. The only collision points would be the vertical stands that hold the model up. These would be special hit locations - the forward stand would be the hangar bay and the rear stand the bridge. The front section would have at least four hull zones and firing arcs to split the shields up more, the rear section could maybe get away with just three. I could see going as high as six on the front and five on the back though. More hull zones also means that the armament can be represented better without have a 20 dice arc. The two sections would have different command values to represent how unwieldy and difficult it is to command such a huge ship (maybe two front and four back). Maybe the front command dial can only be used for tokens. I have also been thinking about modified movement rules - like you have to feed the rear section at least a nav token just to maintain your speed, otherwise it will drop back to zero and you'll lose your defense tokens. The front section is where all the firepower will be, but also the high squadron value, so you'll have to choose what to focus on more. The rear section is more vulnerable, but it can't just sit there and spam engineering commands because it takes constant effort just to keep the thing moving.
  8. The big ships can only carry so many shield generators, and have limited power available, so the most important areas get the most shields. Engine wash damage started in XvT and carried on through XW:A. It wasn't in X-Wing or TIE Fighter, which gave the CR-90 a big blindspot in back.
  9. What if they had Swarm with Heavy? Idea being, they don't contribute to the Swarm, but they take advantage of it with missiles if another friendly squadron is distracting the enemy.
  10. Now I want a multi-part box set with quick swap pieces, allowing one to create any of the six variants, with stat cards split between factions... one ship would be a whole wave of releases
  11. Painting the fighters would have caused the box set to be at least $30-50 more. No thank you. The player in Armada is at least a task force Captain, probably a Commodore or Read Admiral. Officers high enough in rank that they shouldn't be worrying about individual fighter craft. What you are proposing would require way more record keeping, rules, complications, and play time to a game that is not about fighters.
  12. Nice comparision!Rook Squadron - standing by! Well it looks like you just helped me name my B-Squadron. OK, that's all the spots for Knight, Rook, and King squadrons filled. A couple spots open in Bishop and Queen squadrons. What we could really use is more guys for Pawn squadron... anybody?
  13. At 90m, would the GR-75 be on ship bases in Armada? It seems too big for a squadron base, but I think it might weird on even a small base. I was thinking it would be cool if they made a BFF-1 Bulk Freigher or Container Transport pack that was neutral, but came with its own Convoy Objective card or maybe a mini-campaign to destroy/protect a resupply shipment.
  14. Thanks again for the diagrams! The Praetor is too close to an equilateral triangle for me. The Bellator is long and thin and may have similar problems as the Executor. The Secutor looks bland to me from above, but I found an image from the side that looks pretty cool - maybe it could be a "small Epic" ship (like the GR-75) The Assertor is the most visually appealing to me in that diagram. It looks more "Star Destroyer-y" than the Executor. It isn't as spindly as the Executor so it will fit on a rectangular base better, and it is wider relative to the length, so with the shorter actual length it should fit in as a 16-20" model much better. When I scale the Assertor down to the same size as the 16" Executor it looks better / more proportional. Also, it appears there is a lot less detailed information available on the Assertor, so FFG would have more freedom do what they like with it.
  15. I think in the video games, the B-Wing was faster than the Y-Wing at default energy levels, so that might be where the notion comes from.
  16. It's possible for the AI to operate with less information, yes. Whether it would be "enough", I'm not sure. It might result in the AI crashing a lot. It is also possible that distortion in the picture could actually be advantageous in this case - it could let the AI make more realistic mistakes and act more human. I guess it depends on what you expect - are you just looking for something that isn't completely dumb to test some ideas against, or are you looking for a challenging game experience?
  17. One video game programmer's perspective: The maneuver tool itself is not an impediment to creating an AI. The maneuver tool creates a finite set of locations, each one of which can be evaluated for suitability; this is how a lot of game AIs work. The number of possible locations is small enough that any modern smartphone can compute all the possibilities and evaluate them very quickly, assuming the AI has all of the information available. Getting the AI that information is the problem. You're not going to want to input it manually every turn, that would be too tedious. You could just input the starting positions and then the maneuvers each turn, but the computer model is going to diverge from reality due to humans not placing things precisely, and that will probably also get rather tedious. I was thinking about a method in which you put a QR code or something similar on each ship. Then, when it is the AI's turn, you take a picture of the board so that the AI has all the positioning information instantly. I have never worked with cameras or imaging systems like that though, so I don't know for sure if that would work. The image from the camera might be too distorted to get useful distance information from. Making a play-by-email engine would effectively be making a digital version of the game, which is really not very difficult as video games go. FFG has sort of done that with Battlelore, but I don't know if the Disney license would allow such a thing for Star Wars. I suspect the dice roller is the only Star Wars app for a reason.
  18. With the limited resources until Wave 1 arrives, I'm not really interested in the "best" or "most-efficient" fleet. What fleet arrangements from the core set will give the most balanced / most interesting / most FUN game experience for both players? Alternatively, what match up is the most interesting to play solo?
  19. I think a lot of the confusion is from "leftover" XWM rules still floating around in people's heads.
  20. I was thinking of a map campaign system based on Diplomacy. I think the issuing and resolving orders in Diplomacy works well to represent the difficulty of coordinating fleets across vast distances in space. There would only be an actual Armada battle when two armies attack each other directly - otherwise whichever fleet has a disadvantage would hyperspace out of there (modified by Interdictors of course). I also want to bring in some elements from Axis & Allies (or Attack!), especially in regards to building fleets and researching new equipment.
  21. It seems like some people are saying you have to break through shields to get a crit effect, but that is just for the default effect, correct? By my current understanding, with something like Assault Concussion Missiles, the crit effect will apply whether you have broken through the shields or not.
  22. We already have ships activating before squadrons. Maybe Epic format could have a new phase just for Star Dreadnought size ships. What if the Star Dreadnoughts had flat bases, and other ships could move over them? Since the huge ships are so lumbering, other ships can usually fly over/under them, and collisions would only occur with the support stands. I also agree that the Executor is the limit. We messed with the scaling in the diagrams, and I think it can just barely be squeezed in to something slightly bigger than an XWM CR-90, but the Assertor class at 15000m would be much easier to fit. I also like the Bellator-class, and at "only" 7200m it should be a cinch
  23. I would think on any of the carrier ships that one squadron would always be "on call" - these guys have to hang out near the hangar bay and be ready to launch at a moment's notice. So maybe they could launch one squadron right away, but the rest have to wait to load, fuel, wake up the pilots, or whatever.
  24. I can't count the number of times I was plugged by cap-ship friendly fire in X-Wing and TIE Fighter back in the good old pc gaming days. And in a shieldless TIE, that meant BOOM. To be fair, you might have survived... just with no targeting computer, scanners, or ammo counter
  25. I think there's one thing that really illustrates how abstract a turn in Armada is: the Station obstacle. By overlapping the Station, a capital ship or squadron can repair damage. If a capital ship has enough time to dock with a station and use that station's resources to repair damage in one turn, one turn is pretty long. More than enough time to deploy squadrons. Also, with the one mission card (Hyperspace Ambush?), the ship shows up with squadrons already deployed. Since the Imperials can do it, that means one turn is long enough to hyper in and deploy squadrons right away.
  • Create New...