Jump to content

darkknight109

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About darkknight109

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. darkknight109

    New factions

    Fair point and I don't necessarily disagree. I could see the CC-7700 fitting somewhat into the Rebels' MO (set up an ambush for a Imperial convoy in a hyperlane, pull them out of hyperspace, destroy the escorts and capture the cargo, run back to base), but I can also buy the argument that it doesn't fit as well with them as it does for the Empire. The only reason I would want an Interdictor (or equivalent) is for campaign games - Interdictor has a special rule in CC that prevents ships from fleeing, where the Rebels don't have anything that can similarly trap an Imperial fleet trying to get away. It's more of a balance issue (albeit a minor one) than a thematic one.
  2. darkknight109

    New factions

    I think there's still plenty of options there, if FFG wants to use them. Rebels: Liberator Cruiser, Dauntless Cruiser, CC-7700 (which would be handy as a "Rebel Interdictor"), CC-9600, MC-40 Light Cruiser, Star Defender, Empire: Dreadnought, Carrack Cruiser, Lancer Frigate, Ardent Fast Frigate, Strike Cruiser, Bellator Battlecruiser, There's also the option for a pirate/independent faction if FFG wanted to add just one new faction instead of trying for two. Not saying that it would necessarily be the best business option to stick with the GCW, but it *is* an option that's still there if FFG wants to go down that road.
  3. darkknight109

    Galactic Conquest: An Armada Campaign (feedback requested)

    So, last call for any general feedback - I'm trying to spot any holes in this before I actually attempt running a campaign with it.
  4. darkknight109

    Sliding (Hangar Bay) Doors...

    Then stick more on there. Four is the minimum crew, but that can go up to 20. The problem is, in Star Wars terms, four TIE Fighters isn't a lot of firepower. Witness how the Millennium Falcon, a private smuggler's ship (albeit a pretty good one, but still just something cobbled together by one spice smuggler using illicit proceeds) was more than a match for that exact pursuing force. An unshielded, weakly armoured TIE Fighter can go down to a single well-placed laser cannon shot, while something like a gunboat can laugh as those shots bounce off its shields. Keep in mind that those four TIE Fighters are collectively packing about as much firepower as a single Assault Gunboat (four TIE Fighters = eight laser cannons, one Assault Gunboat = two laser cannons, two ion cannons, two warhead launchers). Using real life parallels isn't the greatest for Star Wars because real life drug smugglers aren't usually using boats with enough firepower to shoot back and sink their pursuers. And why wouldn't you use the SPC for this? If you're speaking strictly about gunboats, those would usually radio back to a base/mothership in another system if they needed backup or a transport to come out and pick something up. I don't see the gap that you're seeing. If the route is small, out of the way, and unimportant, you use gunboats or SPCs because they're mobile, they have the capacity for independent takedown and capture operations (which a Gozanti with TIE Fighters lacks - if the ship pulls a runner, you have no ion cannons present to stop them, meaning it's "blow them up or let them go" - not great options if the thing you're chasing has sensitive cargo that you'd like to capture) and can operate for extended periods of time away from refuel and repair facilities. If you're looking at a larger area where you feasibly would need more dedicated fighter support, you build a permanent installation and house a squadron of fighters onboard a platform. I just don't see the niche the Gozanti would occupy between those two situations. Four TIE Fighters just isn't enough of a threat to make it worthwhile.
  5. darkknight109

    Sliding (Hangar Bay) Doors...

    I wouldn't say the Falcon had trouble with them - they didn't take any serious damage and didn't seem to ever be at any major risk of being destroyed. Which isn't surprising because the Empire *wanted* them to get away. They wanted to put up just enough of a fight to make it seem like they were trying to stop them, but not so much that they wouldn't be able to escape. But that's where the SPC comes in. It can be crewed by as few as four people (i.e. less than the Gozanti + 4 TIE Fighters), but it has the advantage of being able to be used as a customs and inspection ship as well (which the Gozanti would have difficulty with). To my eye, TIE starfighters were genuine war fighters, meant for use against the Empire's biggest foes (like the Rebellion and organized crime); they have too many impracticalities in their design to be a good patrol ship for day-to-day operations unless you have a dedicated base to support at least a full squadron - it's just not what they're designed for. In Legends, Assault Gunboats filled that niche much better - hyperdrive meant they could easily move from system to system on patrol and pursue ships through hyperspace without having to re-dock on a parent craft, shields made them hardier and less likely to incur damage that would require downtime for repairs, a life-support system meant they could operate away from bases or planetary systems for longer periods of time, an atmospheric design meant they could pursue ships into atmospheres without a noticeable drop in performance, and ion cannons allowed them to disable ships for capture rather than being forced to destroy them. Even with a mobile platform like the Gozanti, TIE Fighters lack those features, which would make them a poor patrol ship for day-to-day law-and-order missions unless they were supported by other vessels.
  6. darkknight109

    Armada: Where to go from here?

    I wouldn't suggest these missions be used in tournaments or competitive play, for the exact reasons you're bringing up here - tournaments thrive on equality and balance and it is much, much harder for asymmetric gameplay to have those traits (and even when they do, they're often still perceived as being imbalanced, which isn't much better). These would be for casual play, an alternate way to play Armada for those who want to try something new. To me, the more restrictive movement in Armada would be part of the appeal (and the challenge) for both sides. There are strategies you could employ in Armada that simply wouldn't work in Warhammer due to the much increased manoeuvrability in that game. By the same token, your initial deployment becomes all the more crucial, because it's more difficult to correct mistakes. I just like having official stuff, because it allows everyone to be on the same page and gives the company itself a chance to playtest an idea and balance it with ships they may have in development, making any fine-tuning/errata as needed. It also gives FFG an option to support Armada without pushing out any new models if production capacity is an issue, although I'm not convinced that's the case.
  7. darkknight109

    Armada: Where to go from here?

    One thing I would love to see from Armada is different "types" of missions and gameplay. Yes, Objective cards and the various ship/commander abilities are supposed to add new twists on the gameplay, but I find that more often than not this is only a tepid step towards a much greater possibility and results in games that feel like variations on a theme. I have many complaints about Warhammer, but this is one of the things they do really well - there's a huge variety of missions and game modes available that mean that the exact same two armies can fight each other for a dozen games and every time things feel different. For instance, you could have missions like: Breakout: One fleet is significantly more powerful than the other (maybe twice as strong), but their opponent is trying to flee off the far board, rather than fight. The "blockader" has to deploy their entire fleet first, perhaps with an extra-large deploy zone to set up multi-tiered defences, while the "runner" has to pick how they're going to try and escape. Do they pick the weakest part of the enemy formation and try and punch directly through? Do they instead opt to make a multi-pronged approach, ensuring that their opponent has to try and move forces to react to multiple points of incursion? Base Defence: One side defends a station in the middle of the board, while the other attempts to destroy it (shamelessly inspired by the last mission of the third tour of duty in TIE Fighter). Attacker has the option of setting up on multiple board edges, and even holding some of their fleet in reserve to launch as a potential "second wave" later in the battle, ensuring the defender always has to keep one eye on the empty board quadrants. The defender might also have the option of setting up static defences, like minefields. Last Stand: One side gets to continually cycle their ships (aside from their flagship, perhaps), redeploying any destroyed ships on their table edge the following turn. The defender is simply trying to either wipe out as many of the enemy vessels as possible before they are overwhelmed and dragged down to their demise, or, as an alternate, survive with at least one ship until a set time limit. Convoy Raid: One side sets up on one of the short board edges and has to shepherd unarmed cargo ships to the opposite end of the board, while the enemy deploys in waves along the long table edge and tries to stop them. Pursuit: Similar to the above, except one side sets up in the middle of one half of the board (the runner) and the other, which gets a modest points advantage, on the nearest short edge (the pursuer), with half their forces able to deploy on later turns from the long edges to intercept the fleeing fleet. The running fleet - or possibly just the flagship - has to try to escape off the other short edge. Do you gun the fleet's engines and try and try and stay ahead of the pursuers at your back? Do you let a big, tanky ship or two fall back and turn to face the pursuers in order to get in their way and cause a traffic jam? I feel like Armada could be so, so much more interesting than "set up your fleet on the long board edges, fly towards each other, pew pew until someone dies". It would also encourage different-themed fleet building beyond "What can I put together that makes the enemy explode most expeditiously?" That double Cymoon build you love so much won't do so well in a mission where you have to be able to cover large swathes of the board and/or react to sudden new threats. That Ackbar Conga Line won't help you much in a mission that's going to need your fleet moving straight ahead with targets mostly in the forward arc. ****, a couple of these missions might make Konstantine be actually be worth taking in order to slow down a fleeing objective ship. I love the game as it is right now, but a greater variety of missions would be amazing.
  8. darkknight109

    Galactic Conquest: An Armada Campaign (feedback requested)

    Two reasons for this - one is to try and keep bookkeeping to a reasonable level (this campaign already requires plenty) and the other is meant to shape strategy. Defensive garrisons are meant to be "anchored" to their parent planet, with no way to move them - this is intended to force teams to think carefully about how much they want to spend defending a given planet, given that any money put there is basically left there until destroyed. It seems wonky, I know, but in the non-Armada variants of this campaign that I've played/run, it actually works really well. I waffled on this, largely for the reasons you're bringing up here (although I hadn't considered the MSU issue - went with Medium or Large ships purely from a lore perspective, given that anything smaller probably wouldn't have hangar space enough for a full squadron). I was originally considering writing in that starfighters could retreat through hyperspace too (with exceptions for TIE Fighters, Interceptors, and Bombers) but wasn't sure if I wanted to get that granular. I kind of like the idea of forcing someone to decide whether they want to hang back with one of their ships to try and recover some fleeing fighter squadrons that are being harassed by pursuers, or cut their losses and flee to hyperspace, abandoning the fighters to their fate. I'm not completely sold one way or another, though, so I could very well end up changing my mind on this. Perhaps this is my inexperience shining through, but generally I find Ace squadrons already have a survivability bonus built in in the form of defence tokens, whereas the generics are usually more "chaff" that gets tossed at the enemy, with the mindset of "there's a good chance they'll die, but hopefully they will take out enough enemy squads/shields/hull points to pay back their points cost". Aces - especially of the scatter/brace variety - seem to be pretty durable in the games I've played; I don't think I've yet see Whisper or Morna Kee go down. Interesting idea, but I'm not sure I'm sold on it. I could see using the CC "elite squads" as that sort of an upgrade, but something doesn't feel right about that approach for the other aces (though I can't really articulate what).
  9. darkknight109

    Sliding (Hangar Bay) Doors...

    SPCs weren't really meant to be mobile starfighter platforms like Gozantis are - they were picket ships for low-priority areas that weren't important enough to warrant a proper base and/or fighter contingent. They're probably closer in parallel to a Decimator than a Gozanti. In the old lore, some of the smaller ships (like the CR90s) were occasionally modified to carry a small number of fighters (usually ~3), but that was usually for gameplay purposes. In-universe, it actually makes sense to me that neither side had something like the Gozantis, because it kind of goes against the starfighter philosophy of both sides. The Rebellion was all about raiding, hit-and-run style attacks, which is why all their starfighters had hyperdrives. They didn't need a Gozanti because it was wasted resources and they generally weren't going to be deployed "in the field" for long periods of time that would necessitate a refuelling/re-arming platform. Instead, they could just jump in, hit hard, and leave before reinforcements showed up. The Empire didn't really need Gozantis either because, even though their own starfighters lacked hyperdrives (elite units like the Avengers and Defenders notwithstanding), they went with a quality-over-quantity approach. Bringing four TIEs to the battle wasn't likely to sway the odds one way or another - you needed, at bare minimum, a full squad. That's where ships like the Escort Carrier come in, which was really designed to be a flying hangar with minimal defences. If you needed something less powerful than a fighter wing, but more than an SPC, you'd typically be flying in support ships like ATR-6s or DX-9s, or call in Assault Gunboats for something with a little more punch. Really, though, when the Empire came to battle, they usually brought overwhelming numbers with them, because that's how they won - Gozantis don't really factor into that style of warfare.
  10. darkknight109

    Sliding (Hangar Bay) Doors...

    I don't think FFG is worried about crossing over to Legends stuff. I don't keep up on what's been "re-canonized" following the Disney purchase, but both Armada and X-Wing have ships from the old canon ported over that I'm pretty sure have not been in any recent material (off the top of my head, this includes TIE Phantoms, E-Wings, Decimators, K-Wings, HWK-290s, and StarVipers) as well as some characters (Maarek Stele, Keyan Farlander, Ryad, Dash Rendar, Xizor, Guri, etc.). They haven't really done that with any capital ships (the only possible exception I can think of are the VSDs - are those still canon?) but I don't see why they couldn't, given that they're clearly alright with going back to old lore for starfighters and upgrades.
  11. darkknight109

    Galactic Conquest: An Armada Campaign (feedback requested)

    I'm trying to avoid adding levelling up into this as well - bookkeeping for this many fleets is complex enough as it is, nevermind adding experience to the mix. The generics are an interesting idea, though.
  12. darkknight109

    New factions

    They don't, although you could be forgiven for thinking they did, because Episode VII never really bothers to explain the difference between the New Republic and the Resistance, nor why both exist (which they really should have, because it makes things a lot less confusing). Cliff notes version is that after Endor the Empire was beaten back by the Rebellion, eventually fleeing to unexplored regions of space where they were assumed to have been so depleted that they would eventually just die out. Unbeknownst to them, the Empire happened to discover some very resource-rich planets, which they used to grow and rebuild, reforming into the First Order. Meanwhile, a war-weary galaxy re-established the Republic and the Rebellion disbanded. When the First Order re-emerged, most of the Republic supported a sort of uneasy "If you don't mess with us, we won't mess with you," truce. A small number insisted that it was just a matter of time before the First Order made a play to take over the galaxy and advocating re-arming and taking the fight to them. These people were the ones who formed the Resistance. They aren't directly supported by the Republic (hence why they have a tiny fleet and only a few dozen starfighters - that's all they could cobble together via private donations) but they are aligned with their goals and interests. The people whom the Resistance were calling at the end of Episode VIII wasn't the remainder of the Resistance (who could all fit on the Falcon at that point), it was the rest of the Republic, trying to let them know that "Hey, there are still people out here fighting against the First Order, please join our cause so we can actually unite and have some hope of winning this thing."
  13. darkknight109

    Galactic Conquest: An Armada Campaign (feedback requested)

    And so there is. How did I miss that? That looks like it would work perfectly for what I'm going for! Wouldn't last/first shenanigans already be an issue with a static initiative if the attacker (who has initiative by default) has more ships than the defender? Fair point, I suppose. That being the case, I'm starting to lean towards nixing that "garrison exception" for commanders. Many planets in the games of this I've played aren't all that important, tactically speaking, so they get left with their default defences (200 points) - sometimes less, if they haven't been touched since the start of the game and were deemed unimportant enough to get a pittance from the initial defence fund. The commanders would be upgrades to boost up particularly important planets, like the capitals or the Turn 1 exposed planets (Bespin/Corellia).
  14. darkknight109

    Grimdark in the Star Wars Universe

    I hated the Vong for how much of a departure they were from Star Wars in both tone and substance. First of all, they really seemed to grab the Villain Sue ball and run with it. Let's see - they have armour and weapons that are resistant or immune to lightsabers, they have no presence in the Force and are undetectable by Jedi, they have living starships that are also super-resistant to conventional weaponry, they have this weird, magical living planet that can travel through hyperspace, and all-in-all they're just this superpowerful mega alien force that was somehow unknown for Galactic History, yet emerged strong enough to take on every other force in the galaxy put together and win... ugh. If you take any one or two of those traits, you'd have a compelling villain - ALL of them just made the Vong feel ridiculously over the top. Not to mention, the tone of their stories was excessively grimdark for Star Wars. I felt like I'd picked up a Warhammer 40k book when I first started reading the Vong books and rapidly lost interest from there. To be certain, there's nothing wrong with a grimdark story - I love the 40k EU and it does a mostly good job, in spite of being over-the-top dark - but it's not Star Wars.
  15. darkknight109

    New factions

    I've heard the "more factions" argument before, but I'm not sure I see how it could really be done without radically changing up how Armada works. I mean, I wouldn't say either of the current sides has a strong "identity". There's a few generalizations - Imperials tend to have better hull, Rebels tend to have better shields, Imperials tend to have better front arcs, Rebels tend to have better broadsides - but those are generalizations only and they don't have a strong impact on how the faction as a whole plays. It's not like something like, say, Warhammer 40k, where I know that if I'm facing Orks I'm probably going to be dealing with a massive blob of infantry that's going to get right up in my face. Pretty much all playstyles are open to both factions right now, which is a strength as well as a weakness of the game. So my question is, if you were going to introduce a third (or fourth or sixth) faction to the game, how would you put it out there so that it plays noticeably different from the Empire and the Rebellion? Or if you don't and opt to make a third faction that's largely the same as the other two, what's the main driver for adding a new faction(s)?
×