Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hockeyzombie

  1. Empire. I like the look of their ships better and setting up one or two big hits with a front arc is more my style of play than the 'thousand cuts' approach a lot of Rebel lists seems to use. I also find it easier to build squadron lists with them because they tend to be more neatly divided in to attacking squadrons or ships, while Rebels have more versatile squadrons (that are costed accordingly). I find I have an easier time sorting out what counts as enough anti-ship squadrons when I'm building Imperial lists, and Rhymer simplifies the problem of how to get my bombers on target quickly. 

  2. 3 hours ago, Ironlord said:

    It has weapons blisters on the bottom.

    I'd say the only thing it could fire absolutely everything at (assuming all the blisters rotate) would be a planet.

    But it also has guns on the top, so at best it can fire on two targets. Of course the amount of firepower it has means that actually trying to focus like that is a huge waste of effort when it could be doing something more akin to having every passenger fire an Uzi out a different window. The only thing that seems worth the trouble would be another SSD or equivalent, and as far as I know there was no such ship outside of the Empire and anything comparable would have been too old to take the Executor or its siblings in a one on one.

  3. 5 hours ago, Ironlord said:

    Saxton's estimate for the number of "weapons blisters" on an SSD was 942. He equated them to the ISD's 8 heaviest, and suggested it would have 118x the firepower of an ISD.


    But if they're equivalent not to the heaviest, but also to the 120-plus light weapons on an ISD, that drops it down some.

    I imagine the SSD also has a harder time focusing all fire on one target, since it's flatter than the ISD and can't possibly angle every gun in the same direction unless they seriously didn't put any guns on the bottom. Hard to say how much fire it can pour into a given target, but I'd imagine it can outpace at least a few ISDs per target, and do that to several targets at once. In Armada terms I imagine it has more than four hull zones and each one would be better than three or four ISDs. But yeah, it probably has tons of smaller weapons for shooting at corvettes and flotillas in addition to the big turbolasers and anti-fighter weapons. 


    I should probably clarify that I'm usually thinking of it in terms of "how many ISDs do you need to match the effectiveness of the SSD?" since multiple ships can spread out and maneuver in ways that one **** huge ship can't. So there's a lot of ways the ISD swarm can ramp up their effectiveness through strategy where the SSD (without support units) just has "fly through the middle and kill everything to the left and right of me." 

  4. 9 hours ago, Ironlord said:

    Which led to some complaints from those who think an SSD, being quite a lot more than 100x volume of ISD, should have at least 100x firepower. Possible solution was - it has 10x the "weapons loadout" (total number of weapons) but the individual weapons are 10x as powerful - thus Executor-class is equal to 100 ISDs.

    Can't say I like their reasoning. Size doesn't directly translate to firepower, although they are related. I agree that the SSD being about 10 times as effective as a regular ISD is pretty underwhelming, though. It should have room on it for enough guns to make it more dangerous than that. 

  5. 7 hours ago, Rettere said:

    I still think Leia wants a comms net. 2 points to turn your emergency dial into an emergency dial+token is HUGE...

    I actually have gone back and found room, though in doing so I redid my entire fighter group. I've been wanting to use my Z-95s anyway, so I dropped the Medical Team from the MC80 and all my squadrons. Now the fighters are as follows:

    Lt. Blount

    Z-95 x3 

    YT-1300 x2

    No idea how it'll go but 7 hull with Escort and Counter 1 actually seems pretty good, and the low speed isn't that bad since the Headhunters are pretty slow themselves. Altogether this leaves me with 6 points in my list, so I'm just kind of mulling over what might be useful. I'll probably just put an Engineering Team on the MC80, since it's going to be taking the most fire. 

  6. 5 hours ago, Rettere said:

    I guess my point is that you get maximum value from Mon Karren (an expensive title) when it is the only token control you are using. As an example, if you have Xi7 and a natural accuracy vs. the VSD, then Mon Karren is actually giving you nothing for that attack. So I would either use MK or Xi7 but not both.

    Good point. For some reason I kept doing my math as if stopping the brace token was somehow effected by whether I had both upgrades or just one. For some reason it just now sunk in that either way I need an accuracy result to stop the brace. I mean, he can redirect the damage to the sides but my torpedo frigates are totally fine with that. 

    1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

    May be silly advice, but with this build I'd try very hard to squeeze in an Intel officer on mon karren. If the defender can only use one defense token, and can only redirect one point... then they're probably gonna take brace (if they have it).... either way, with an Intel officer you can take out a brace very early.... That can spell the end of bulkier ships like ISDs and is more effective than depending on accuracy icons as ECMs is fairly common.

    My 2¢

    And while we're on the subject of removing brace tokens...I was going to set this idea aside for another list but after looking it over I'm loving the look of Intel Officer+X17. Since it seems Mon Karren is a bit redundant with what I'm doing I'll leave that part aside to try later. For now I'll use X17s instead of Mon Karren because that way I can basically dismiss redirect tokens as not important, which will make it much easier to determine which tokens to name with Intel Officer and get through them a lot faster. 


    Current build is 

    MC80 Battle Cruiser

    -General Dodonna

    -Intel Officer

    -Gunnery Team

    -Leading Shots

    -Medical Team

    -XX-9 Turbolasers

    -X17 Turbolasers


    MC30c Torpedo Frigate

    -Ordnance Experts

    -Assault Proton Torpedoes



    MC30c Torpedo Frigate

    -Ordnance Experts

    -Advanced Projectors

    -Assault Proton Torpedoes


    GR-75 Medium Transports

    -Leia Organa


    Wedge Antilles

    Shara Bey

    Tycho Celchu



    Precision Strike

    Jamming Barrier

    Superior Positions

  7. Guys, he doesn't have Screed. He hasn't bought a Gladiator. That said OP, you should totally borrow Screed if someone will let you. Dude's great and Overload Pulse loves him. 


    Be aware that Overload Pulse+Avenger doesn't work the way you probably think it does. The target can spend tokens before Avenger gets to choose a critical effect, so you'll want to move that Overload Pulse to the Victory II and the XX9s over to Avenger. Avenger should also be the one with Leading Shots. If you have Electronic Countermeasures, those will probably do more for you than Redundant Shields. Redundant Shields only gets you about four or five shields back per game, but using ECM to use a brace token after they try to stop it with an accuracy result will be much more useful in most games. If you don't have ECM, that's alright. 


    You might also want to consider more TIEs. Never underestimate how quickly you can be torn down by bombers. That may depend on your local meta; I can run often get away with running two or three aces and calling it a screen. 


    For objectives I'd say Advanced Gunnery is an obvious choice with your ISD, Contested Outpost because then they have to get within range of your Star Destroyer firing squad, and maybe Minefields to punish them for trying to go around you.

  8. I've played a few lists that featured a pair of Victory Is with whatever else I felt like using, and they're terrifyingly effective if you can get a target in close range. I've used an Interdictor and Konstantine to mess with the speed of my target, which works really well with the G8. I've also used Demolisher to "encourage" the target to move faster. The general trick is to keep the Victorys a little spread out and accept that they most likely won't be able to focus down the same target. Try to deploy them last so you can position them to get into high traffic areas. I also like to put Navigation Officers on them so I can whirl around unexpectedly, although taking Jerjerrod as your Admiral works too. 

    The Victory-class provides a lot of firepower and health for 73/85 points, it just needs the right support to put that value to work. If they get that support they're great. I think they're actually the ship I use the most, only the Gladiator can challenge that. And Gozantis but that's kind of a given. 

  9. 54 minutes ago, Rettere said:

    How about comms net on the Leia transport?

    Also I would reconsider the xi7... when you already have mon karren the xi7 isn't buying you much. I'd rather have dual turbolasers, or spinal armament (drop advanced projectors to pay for it).

    Opened the list up in a builder and realized I'm actually right at 400, so I'd have to drop something for Comms Net. Dual Turbolasers are always good, might switch them in. I've only used X17s once or twice so I'll probably try them out before I change them. My usual opponent really likes his Victory-classes so between X17 and at least one Accuracy result I might be able to basically disable all his defence tokens. Against other people I'll probably just go straight to DTTs instead. 

  10. 15 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

    I disagree. Completely. I've played some 120+ games and having flexibility in fighter activation has NEVER been a fault. Waves 3-5 have spoiled players into that line of thinking. Alpha strikes are great... not required. Squadrons can do wonders in squadron phase, and having up to 5 extras to choose between during ship activation adds flexibility. 


    there are improvements this fleet could make.... switching out ties for a Jendon/Stele combo and/or adding Rhymer for medium range tie attacks...  but I do not believe every fighter MUST be activated by ship. It hasn't been a must in the past and I doubt it ever will be. 

    Agreed. Worst case scenario, you still have ten TIEs throwing a total of 30 blue dice at the enemy while five more TIEs show up to help in the next round. And let's be real, you never have to worry about enemy bombers unless they do something with Rapid Launch Bays and you somehow don't see it coming.

  11. 48 minutes ago, chr335 said:

    Add Luke as he ignores shields when attacking ships and has a black bomber dice giving another crit generator.

    I like the idea but with only four squadrons what are the odds he gets more than one attack on a ship? I could switch him in and drop Wedge but I'm already pretty light on squadrons, and Wedge will be better at evening the odds there. 

  12. I've been playing Imperials almost exclusively, so I want to give Rebels another go. Here's what I'm thinking. 


    MC80 Battle Cruiser (flagship)

    -General Dodonna

    -Gunnery Team

    -Leading Shots

    -XX-9 Turbolasers

    -X17 Turbolasers

    -Mon Karren


    MC30c Torpedo Frigate

    -Ordnance Experts

    -Advanced Projectors

    -Assault Proton Torpedoes


    MC30c Torpedo Frigate

    -Ordnance Experts

    -Advanced Projectors

    -Assault Proton Torpedoes


    GR-75 Medium Transports

    -Leia Organa


    Shara Bey

    Tycho Celchu

    Wedge Antilles



    Precision Strike

    Jamming Barrier

    Superior Positions


    Obviously, the goal is to pummel them with critical effects and just pick the most damaging card available. I play Gladiators often so I'm pretty confident I can get my MC30s up close and personal. The GR-75 will just trail behind the Mon Karren to help me change plans if the situation doesn't develop the way I expect it to. My usual opponent isn't big on bomber lists so I'm fine with a light screen as long as I take out anything that can reliably hurt a ship. I'm also happy with first or second player, so I don't mind spending most/all of my points. (Edit: I miscounted; thought I had 2 points left but I'm at 400 with the list as it's shown) (Edit of my edit: I actually was at 398, forgot that I'd removed Ahsoka but there's an updated version of the list a few posts down anyway)


    I'm not sure about Jamming Barrier. My thinking was that I could use it to prevent the torpedo frigates from taking too much damage on the way in but I've never used that objective. I also considered Hyperspace Assault and Planetary Ion Cannon. Precision Strike seems like an obvious choice with two ships launching APTs at people and Superior Positions lets me deploy my entire list after my opponent so I like it. Of course, I'm open to suggestions. 

  13. Won mine at the end of round three. My Interdictor list (Suppression refit with two Victory Is and a Gozanti) was up 2-0, my Rhymerball (ISD I, Gozanti, two Arquitens light) was down at 0-2 but was able to mostly repair scars but had only made it up to about 420-some points. My opponent had two fleets that were both 1-1, with no scars at around 420-440 points. Then the Rhymerball finally came through and I tabled him at Centerpoint, suffering a few minor scars and losing an Arquitens. Following that I again tabled him with my Interdictor list, leaving only one squadron unscarred. He did the math on how much it would cost just to unscar and surrendered after I noted that one of my fleets would be hitting 500 and hinted that I'd be taking a base over.


    Had we continued I would have most likely taken over the most valuable base he had (or at least inflicted heavy losses) and from there my plan was to just keep hitting bases or grabbing high resource planets. My thinking was that if I have twice as many resources I can handle a game where we each suffer massive casualties, but I can keep stripping uniques from him or forcing him to spend points just to put ships back on the table. Essentially, I was going to use the massive advantage I would have had in round four to cripple his income and then build up resources so that even getting tabled wouldn't stop me from fielding a scar-free list. I mean, he can scrap the fleet and start over but then he's still taking 400 points to defend a base against 500. 


    We're planning to do another one later this year, where we'll both use Rebel units but I'll be the Imperials as far as the campaign rules are concerned (I was the "Rebels" in this campaign). I'm currently debating if we would enjoy the campaign more with a house rule or two to prevent a snowball effect, but I'm going to wait until we're closer to starting because I'm hoping for a proper 2v2 to happen. It's also been suggested that I emphasize the value of preserving ships, since part of my win was because I'm a lot less willing to lose ships to get kills or gain victory tokens. Either way I enjoy the progression as fleets grow in strength so I definitely want to do another. 

  14. How bad is deploying second against that Rebel list, though? The majority of my games have been Empire vs Empire, so I don't have a lot of experience against Rebels or their ships. I don't know how I'd want to deploy against that, although I wouldn't really know how to deploy that Imperial list anyway. I mean, there's no Gladiator. What does one even do with no Gladiator?


    Anyway, I feel like both Armed Station and Ion Cannon will work reasonably well. My preference is still Armed Station because it allows normal deployment, but either way those CR90s are going to eat four dice per turn beyond what your list is capable of. I would think of it this way--are you more confident that you can place ships and tokens in good positions, or that you can keep the combat within medium range of the station? If you can kill Bright Hope with the cannon early on, then both objectives boil down to throwing four dice at something, so really it's largely a question of whether "you deploy first" is a bigger drawback than "but they can kill it and take the advantage away."

  15. It seems to be an unfortunate trend that quick and one-sided fights get dismissed as anti-climactic. I don't really follow Rebels, but the fight came up in my recommended videos on YouTube. I thought it was excellent. Shows what happens when someone tries to go wild against a more controlled and skilled opponent, especially when Maul tries to smack Obi Wan in the face. He obviously didn't consider that Obi Wan might have planned a counter to that move (probably before he even engaged Maul after Qui Gonn died). Maul established himself as a danger when he went on an Inquisitor killing spree but Obi Wan wrecked him pretty good the first time they fought, and while Maul was recovering Obi Wan was fighting in the Clone Wars. That, and as one guy on YouTube said, you never want to rush in blinded by rage against a Soresu master. I also really liked the conversation after the fight. 

    I do want to commend the writers for their attention to detail. Things like Maul trying to use the same trick that killed Qui Gonn, everyone saying "Kenobi" instead of using his first name, and Maul's tendency to incorporate a lot of kicks and handle strikes when fighting. I remember watching Maul fight the Inquisitors with a friend when that episode came out, and the first reaction we both had was that it was good seeing Maul continue bringing kung fu to sword fights. Throughout the series he seems to be one of the only people that does that in lightsaber fights, and it was what enabled him to turn his fight against two Jedi into a duel with Qui Gonn (and what gave him the opening to kill Qui Gonn). 

  16. You're the Empire? Armed Station. Evens out the activation count and gives you two red and two blue, which his small ships will not appreciate. He can blow up the station, but every shot fired at the station is not directed at your ships. Based on my game with this objective you'll want to be close enough to the station that he can't simply throw most/all of his list at it, because 13 hull won't actually last that long with way to reduce or prevent damage. If you do get your own ships attacking while the station is still fighting, you'll have a free attack that can chew through a CR90 or punish his GR-75 for getting too close while also letting you hold off on moving your ships if you want to let him get into blue range before you open up.


    Ion Cannon is good, but that "deploy first" condition can be a dealbreaker. There are some lists I'm willing to do that with but I chose Armed Station specifically because it didn't give my opponent total deployment advantage. 

  17. I've been using unique pilots more lately, but a lot of that is because I've come to see just how much Scatter/Brace improves survivability over just fielding more squadrons. Likewise, I've had to fight Defenders with TIE Fighters and found that it didn't go well for me in most cases. Lower generics still have their value, but if you don't need to be able to spread out and cover a wide area it makes more sense to use something that hits hard and survives. You can cut through the enemy numbers advantage easily enough with a well-timed Squadron command. 

  18. On 2/18/2017 at 2:55 AM, ManInTheBox said:

    FWIW, I saw it the first time in 3D and Tarkin looked soft focus and cartoony.

    Saw it the second time in 2D: wow what a difference. The skin textures were much more believable and it looked *much* more like a real person. The eyes still look a little dead, as they seem to with CGI characters, but overall I had a much better appreciation of what they achievex and I didn't feel it stuck out like a proverbial sore thumb.

    I've only seen it in 2D and I wasn't sure he was CG until later. He had certain offness to him, but honestly given what a soulless monster Tarkin is, that seems appropriate. He was just far enough into the uncanny valley to be the good kind of off-putting. Leia was more noticeably CGI for me but not so much that it bugged me. I wish it had been more convincing but honestly I'd love to see an animated movie that looked like those two characters did. It only looks weird when you've got an unedited real person right there for comparison. 

  19. 1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

     Ah yes, the super government who designs 70% of it's snub fighters with the same...basic...pod.... is going to design them to be so different the pilots couldn't possibly have a base training of all the common ones....

    Come on Ginkapo, is there something else here making you so grumpy that you can't make sense?

    In Legends they often noted the different capabilities of each type of Imperial fighter. Interceptors have incredibly sharp turns and go crazy fast compared to most other options, bombers are slower and clumsier, Defenders are hellbeasts that (depending on your source) are faster than anything else and may or may not have amazing turns, and so on. The cockpit may have a similar layout but that doesn't mean that you can transfer pilots and expect them to know what they're doing. I can barely handle it when I borrow a truck because I'm used to a Buick that's half as tall and much slimmer. I'm helpless if I have to drive a standard transmission. Most Imperial pilots are used to flying as part of a huge swarm of fighters that are pretty mediocre (the TIE fighters real strength is cost-effectiveness). Putting them in an Interceptor and expecting them to handle something much faster with maybe a fourth as many friendly fighters as they're used to just doesn't work without some training and practice. May the Force be with you if the used to have you flying bombers, or if they want to move you over to one. Also the Defender and Advanced were very rare designs that the common pilot wouldn't be trained to fly. They had to earn their way to an Interceptor and then excel at that before they could be tested as a Defender pilot. The Advanced is in a weird place lore-wise but I think it's supposed to be a prototype that was rejected for cost reasons and Vader customized one for himself. 

    Also I'm aware that there's a small difference in move speed in Armada, but in lore the Interceptor and Defender are both much faster than the basic TIE. I'm just rejecting your suggestion that you would just need "a pilot" as opposed to a pilot trained for the specific fighters on board. 


    Also to echo what Ginkapo said, the reason you aren't handed a basic compliment of fighters is so you can pick whatever you'd like--which includes "none, just give me more turbolasers" if that's what you want to do. I'm not sure FFG realized how important the fighter screen would be, but I still like the fact that I can choose to gamble on two Raiders being "good enough" if I'm crazy enough to try it. From a lore perspective, I agree that it makes little to no sense for a Star Destroyer to roll in with no fighters. I mean, did they somehow all get shot down with no damage at all to the ships right before this battle? From a game design perspective, I think it's cool that I can decide how few fighters I want to have. And since this is a game, I'm glad they went with the option that allows me more freedom in list building. 

  20. 16 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:


    Firing arcs on squadrons would be awful. It also doesn't make a ton of sense thematically, since the game is on a large enough scale that it can be fairly assumed that the squadrons move enough to face the enemy without a need to move the miniatures. There's also no need to give out bonuses for attacking from behind since most dedicated bombers in this game are garbage against squadrons already. 

    The "Pairing" rule basically renders squadrons commands obsolete. I mean, why use a dial when I can have my Rhymerball launch a full salvo and delay my ISD activation? 

    I do wish the bases were a little nicer, but the only improvements I can think of would make the game more expensive. I don't like most of your suggested changes but I agree that some kind of change might be good here. 

    I wouldn't be opposed to a "fighter budget" in the actual rules but at the same time I kind of like having the option to spend those points on flotillas or upgrades instead of being required to spend them on fighters. 

    16 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

    And I believe that being forced to sacrifice activation count or a even a basic fighter screen to kit a large ship is logical nonsense. When they kit out aircraft carriers they still come with the aircraft.... It's not like the military goes, "ohhhh sorry, we spent too much on the guns so no planes for you, good luck!" Or, "hey you have to choose between having jets on your carrier or bringing the rest of the fleet, sorry, budget cuts".

    Utter nonsense. 

    Um, what? You understand that the military doesn't operate by the same rules as a miniatures game that uses points to impose balance, right? And it's not like real carriers are good at direct combat. They didn't spend money on guns, they spent it on planes that will act as the guns for the carrier. Most of the "carriers" in Armada have incredible amounts of firepower compared to what a more true to life carrier would ever have. The Quasar looks to be the first exception, since it has something like RRB at best. But yes, if you want your fleet to be good at one thing it's generally going to be worse at other things. That's game balance. 

  21. 7 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

    I'm just commenting on the other threads that basically said: make sure the sides are as even as possible.   

    People here seek primarily to win, and express huge urges to run the most broken things they can for any occasion.  Sometimes you can't be picky about who plays Armada after all. Some other people don't even have a single person to play with.  We just have a really cutthroat area. 

    Not an issue with us, for the most part. He dislikes squadron heavy lists, so I can get my urge to be really greasy out just by running a Rhymerball or something. Still a strong list, sure, but that trollish urge to do something broken can be sated without actually doing anything broken in my case. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone. 


    14 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

    This is what broke your campaign. Chalk it up to a learning experience with brand new content that radically changes the way the game is played, and start over with this knowledge.

    I become more and more confident every day that the snowballing effect is a growing pain of learning the campaign that has soured a great many people's first impressions of it. If you KNOW going into round 1 that you cannot get tabled, then you won't. You will retreat, you will build up to 500 before taking a risky base assault that you know even with a great fleet may leave you heavily scarred. You will play smarter and not get spanked so hard the campaign becomes one sided.

    First time through you don't know that stuff, so you get blown up and rage. Second time it doesn't happen unless you fail to learn your lesson and are pig-headed and refuse to play the scenario. In that case, CC isn't for you and you bought the box simply to have access to some rad unique squads and new objectives. Still a win.

    Good point, we did both focus a lot on winning this battle right here, sometimes unwisely. I remember suggesting that a big part of my campaign win was that my losses were smaller and my wins were pretty big, and outside of games I spent a lot of time considering the best way to bring my weaker fleet up to strength and recover from the losses it had suffered. I do want to emphasize that in many games, Interdictors were in the way of retreat. I was very aggressive with my Interdictor, because if he shoots at it he's ignoring the Victory Is that are smashing through his ships. As a result there were few situations where he both could and would retreat (my Interdictor list never lost; my other list lost twice before winning in the second last battle). I'll have to wait a while before I suggest trying again but if my next campaign is fought without any house rules I'll have to remind people to consider the strategic outcome--it's hardly worth capturing a planet worth 3 resources if your fleet takes bigger losses but wins on points, after all. 

  22. 1 hour ago, RobertK said:

    I don't mean to be overly critical. I just want to point out that it appears that the conditions under which the two of you played seem tailored to having the campaign snowball.

    It's a consequence of our playstyles. We both tend to go in hard and fight tenciously, so when part of the line falls it usually means that whatever killed it is right there to help kill the next target. This was especially noticeable with his Tarkin list and my Konstantine list because in both cases are usual approach was to try and concentrate our strength in a general area. When those lists fought, it was basically a phalanx vs phalanx situation. In theory I should have lost those because Interdictors don't hit like Victorys, but I feel I used Konstantine and my G8 to good effect. I'm also more prone to focus fire, so I usually get first blood even when I lose. You do have a point though, we probably should have worried more about the threat posed by Interdictors. If I had killed one faster my ISD might never have been scarred. 

    2 hours ago, stuuk said:

    If anything the 'scarred' mechanic is overly generous. I know its there to stop people getting hammered but to me it encourages taking even more risks.


    The thing with going all out on a 'must win' victory is that you need to 

    a) Have a backup plan 
    b) Be prepared to not immediately concede if you lose
    c) Know when to back out of the gamble and escape if you need to


    If you had lost would you have conceded? because if so you were really just playing two games and then declaring a winner!

    I wouldn't have conceded, but I tend to lose less dramatically. My Rhymerball fleet was 0-2, but had lost by 23 points the first time and by 1 point the second. By comparison, my Interdictor fleet had tabled the first list it fought (I may have lost a Victory I, don't recall) and scored another massive win in the second round. I could afford to lose a game with that fleet. If I had lost both games that round I probably would have stayed in, but I'm more willing to do things like dance in the corner and hyperspace away. I don't like that approach but if I'm desperate I'll consider it. Part of his reason for conceding was that the "retreat and recover" games wouldn't be fun for either of us, but they were his only hope. We did get six games in before victory was decided, so that wasn't too bad. 


    33 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

    1) "there's basicaly just the two of us, but i try to build strong lists and he tries to build lorefriendly lists": THAT IS BIG. one of you must cater to the other. for example i'd try to build lore-friendly when playing against him! you cant just play stronger lists and expect things to be equal.

    2) "charge and brawl" is never the best strategy in a snowbally game unless you have an unfair advantage (i.e. playing base assault, or with +50 points, or the other guy's list cannot brawl). "effective decisions" means "find a way to make the game unfair to your advantage". this is the basis of strategy.

    3) this is a terrible decision. i did it too in my first CC game because i *didnt understand* it has such a snowbally nature. in snowbally games, "chasing a loss always"(that is, trying to even up with a win after you've lost significantly) leads to bigger losses. "concede until late game" is the name of the game.


    Sorry, I should have been more clear. He's not so much building lore lists as he won't do things like a ramming list with Engine Tech CR90s (because that would be useless in canon) or other things like that. He would definitely not put his commander in a flotilla and fly across the edge of the map, for example, because admirals traditionally command from the biggest or second biggest ship in the fleet and it feels inappropriate to not do that (I actually agree but mostly I'm afraid of losing my commander to prowling Raiders). He also seemed surprised when I chose my Gozanti and his ISD for a Most Wanted game, because he sees the goal as "kill their objective ship and protect yours" where I see "they're both gonna die so pick the cheapest and most expensive ships." I typically have an easier time looking away from the theme and simply examining the numbers involved, if that makes sense. I'm more prone to dismissing something as underpowered and then underestimating it in a game, but Armada doesn't have a lot of blatantly underpowered upgrades so my usual weakness is kind of irrelevant. His lore-friendly approach mostly just applies to objectives, but it does mean that I might win a game of Station Assault by ignoring the stations and killing most of his fleet--he wouldn't expect me to just ignore the objective outright, because that's why the game has objectives. That said, just handing over 80 points like that would be a little too bold for me. But that's the difference in our thinking, if a bit generalized.

    Charge and brawl isn't a bad idea when he's got a Victory I and a pair of Victory IIs against an Interdictor a Gladiator I, and two Victory Is. His mistake was that it was a base defence so between my Gozanti and Armed Station I had insane activation advantage, which is something I usually either didn't have or didn't really need. Here, it resulted in his long range shots being answered by my close range shots with Assault Concussion Missiles. In a more even fight he could probably have overwhelmed my medium ships before the Gladiator could really make a name for itself, but being able to stall while throwing RRBB at him was just too good. He saw the problem and took out the station fairly quickly but that took attacks that didn't go into my "phalanx" of medium ships. We're both fairly new to Armada but I browse these forums more so I understood activation advantage fairly well. He would probably have played very differently if he had known, but the damage was done by the time he learned. 

    I do agree that he should probably have backed off and played it safe in the final game. If he won he would have had something to threaten me with, since I'd probably be repairing scars instead of upgrading. I would still have come out ahead but it may have prevented the kind of disaster that ends campaigns. I do want to emphasize that we could have kept going, but he didn't want to go through at least two rounds of playing hyper-cautiously while I effectively get free wins. I also admitted that my next turn would have involved building a new base and then seizing Corellia to build a base on it, so I would have effectively never had to care about scars again. This also would have been relevant with a plan we had to add a reinforcement fleet each in round five, since mine would have gone to 500 points really, really fast.

  23. Just now, RobertK said:

    Forgetting to use hyperspace retreat in a campaign is like forgetting to use defense tokens in a game. It isn't a small mistake. The other issue is that using a high risk strategy in a game is a way to insure that the campaign snowballs. The campaign is a different way of playing. You can't play the game like you would a normal game of Armada. If you do, it's a recipe for the snowball effect.

    In fairness, ships usually died either before/after they could have retreated or while close to an Interdictor. We rarely had the option, and one of the few times I can remember thinking about it my ship was killed before it would have escaped. It also wasn't uncommon for me to consider it and decide to stay in and try to kill the threat first, which did backfire once--I won that game, but could have avoided a scar on one of my VSDs. 


    Keep in mind we were both using Imperial ships and upgrades so Interdictors were often present and very consistently would have prevented any attempt at running. 

  • Create New...