Jump to content

Greatfrito

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    196

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Greatfrito

  1. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

    They did say "length" not "width" - though maybe they'll reveal that they meant width.

     

    If it really is on the order of 240+ km wide, it makes me think of the SDSD Freudian Nightmare and its problems:

     

    SDSD-Freudian-Nightmare.jpeg

    That remains one of my favorite things ever, and I've wanted to run an RPG campaign set there for a long, long time.

    In fact, I think I'll broach that concept again.

    MandalorianMoose, Visovics, Eisai and 1 other reacted to this

  2. Posted

    Wouldn't the inclusion of something like a title allowing you to use an off-faction ship in your fleet just show that that is how the mechanics of the game are intended?

    The extremely rules-lawyer interpretation (which I totally get - that's usually my wheelhouse for games) would in that case just disprove itself, rather than "prove" that the card doesn't work.

     

    If an upgrade was instead printed with "You may select this card before equipping it to a ship.  You must include [ship] in your fleet as if it were [faction], and it counts as [faction] for all other upgrades.  Equip this card to [ship]." - that kind of language would really enforce the detailed rules reading, because it would specifically acknowledge it instead of disregarding it.

     

    Eh.  *shrugs*

  4. Posted · Edited by Greatfrito
    Phantoms: How Do They Work?

    I favor Interceptors when I play Imps, and while they do melt like... uh... butter?  On a... hot... thing?  I've still always felt that I got a lot of value out of them.

    I really want to like Phantoms, but yeah, I also really wish they had a "better" or more clearly thematic ability.

  6. Posted

    Tangential question:

    Are there instructions for how to use everything on Vassal?  I finally broke down and installed it, figuring it would be easier to use than TTS (which it is... sorta... for setup at the very least), but I'm having the hardest time figuring out how to make something like the movement tool actually work.  I feel like I missed some obvious instructions somewhere...

    Wickedfictitous and Teloch reacted to this

  12. Posted · Edited by Greatfrito
    Smartness

    52 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

    In our determination and in the determination of Ard too, the counter is more squadrons.  And not just a few squadrons, usually near 110 points of squadrons plus

    Well, that's been the determination of the designers from the start, too.  The "counter" to squadrons is more squadrons.  They made that explicit from the start, as well as heavily implying it with the actual rules and mechanics.

     

    But that's what I mean when I say that it might be a symptom of the game design.  If squadrons are effective, people are going to bring more points of them.  If people bring more points of them (and the only/main "counter" is more squadrons), people are going to bring more points of counter squadrons.  Unless, as others have said, you can just ignore the squadrons completely (or absorb their impact while still pressing your own agenda).

    EDIT: I was slow, and missed some of the above posts.  The distinction between  countering the playstyle and beating the playstyle is exactly what I meant with my last bit here.  Pretend I'm smarter, and said that too.

    Smartly.

    RedPriest and Undeadguy reacted to this

  15. Posted · Edited by Greatfrito

    Uh... Triple post?

    EDIT: To make use of my post - Have B-Wings come a long way since the start of the game, or am I just keeping better company these days?  I remember being told, over and over, that B-Wings were brokenly underpowered when I started playing.

    RedPriest reacted to this

  16. Posted

    2 hours ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

    Stuff

    I totally take no offense, because you're right about all of that.  :-P

    Personally, I tend to think of squadrons as ship or "fleet" upgrades.

    But then again, I don't have a problem with the state of things.  I really enjoy having the Rebels play like the movie rebels (tons of squadrons, lots of heroes, much less Ship), and squadrons in general working for both sides how they do in star wars "canon".

    RedPriest reacted to this

  18. Posted

    Really, I wonder if the current squadron "problem" isn't just a manifestation of the core game design.

    "Squadrons are a threat." + "Squadrons are the only [real] counter for Squadrons." = "Everyone Brings Squadrons [for offense or defense or both]".

     

    If you go back to the earliest design and marketing articles for Armada, they made (make) it sound like everyone would be using squadrons, either because of their ability to "tear down even the most massive of capital ships" if left unchecked, or because "most fleets protect their ships by using screens of fighters to engage enemy squadrons."

     

    If you want squadrons to be an effective strategic choice, and you want squadrons to be the only viable counter to squadrons, you're going to have to walk a pretty fine line.  If people can "counter" them for significantly less than it costs to effectively run them, they won't really be viable.  But if they cost so much to effectively counter that fleets are forced to choose between being able to deal with squadrons OR being able to deal with ships, you're setting up a weird rock-paper-scissors situation.

     

    Uh.  Anyways.  How 'bout them TIE Phantoms?

  22. Posted

    What about a title that always lets you place the squadrons back on the table when you overlap squadrons with the ship?

    Or one that deals damage to any (or any enemy) squadrons you overlap with the ship?

    Or one that makes the ship not take any ram damage unless the other ship is the same size or larger (on a medium or large ship)?

     

    Just tossing out some (mechanical) ideas.

  23. Posted

    I don't really care for either, but I think I have a greater distaste for the carrack.  It's ugly and boring looking.  The arquitens falls into the "everything must be triangles or TIEs" mentality that I don't really care for either, but I like it a heck of a lot more than the carrack.

    mcworrell reacted to this

  25. Posted

    7 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

    I don't know what the extent of that would be, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make the wife happy....um, yeah, haha.

    Oh god, that is what I'm doing.  I can manage 2v2 with semi-decent options, but I'm not going to be able to manage 3v3 without leaving some players with absolute nonsense fleets.

    Which is fine, since I think we might get as many as 4 total players.

    clanofwolves reacted to this
×
×
  • Create New...