Snipafist

Cannot Get Your Ship Out 8/21 through 8/31

67 posts in this topic

Relatedly: made a ruthless strategists quasar 2 bomber build that looks interesting on paper. Didn't have time to test it, so I didn't bring it to store champs. Must try it later and report here.

Also: if Instructor Goran gives counter to Heavy, that would be so cool.

Snipafist likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 minute ago, Green Knight said:

Also: if Instructor Goran gives counter to Heavy, that would be so cool.

FFG seems quite intent on actually staffing an Imperial Navy's worth of unique officers.

Edited by GiledPallaeon
Grammar
Green Knight and Ardaedhel like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've had positive experiences so far keeping The Quasar-I behind 2 QBT/Dcap/LS/GT Vic IIs with a goz throwing tokens. Howl/Dengar/Soontir/Ciena as my AA and FC/Tua-APs/BCs and motti chilling on my Quasar. 

It's a turtle fleet, but it's hitting unexpectedly hard so far.

Edited by Darth Sanguis
Democratus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I've had positive experiences so far keeping The Quasar-I behind 2 QBT/Dcap/LS/GT Vic IIs with a goz throwing tokens. Howl/Dengar/Soontir/Ciena as my AA and FC/Tua-PEs/BCs and motti chilling on my Quasar. 

It's a turtle fleet, but it's hitting unexpectedly hard so far.

Those things hit like trucks. That seems like a solid fleet, definitely irritating to fight into (*glares at the squadrons). What objectives are you using? Also, what is Tua-PE?

Darth Sanguis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Those things hit like trucks. That seems like a solid fleet, definitely irritating to fight into (*glares at the squadrons). What objectives are you using? Also, what is Tua-PE?

I believe I have either station assault or targeting beacons/contested outpost/salvage run and that's a typo supposed to be AP advanced projectors

GiledPallaeon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I believe I have either station assault or targeting beacons/contested outpost/salvage run and that's a typo supposed to be AP advanced projectors

What's the theory behind Motti and Tua on the Quasar? Trying to more evenly spread out points? Victory's die too often?

Darth Sanguis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GiledPallaeon said:

What's the theory behind Motti and Tua on the Quasar? Trying to more evenly spread out points? Victory's die too often?

Basically. The VSDs are the front line, with the quasar tucked either behind or neatly between, if the quasar can make it to turn 4 without taking shots, I can usually keep it alive... it also forces the opponent to either focus the VSDs which with motti.... are only a few points shy of ISDs in most areas, or split their fire allowing the VSDs to focus them....

like so:

DKep50H.jpg

X4eXYim.jpg

gE9H1EA.jpg


He made some major mistakes I won without losses .... but even the players who could deploy correctly and knew how to arcdodge have a tough time with it. 

GiledPallaeon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snipafist said:

The end effect is the Quasar-II gives up a bit of its carrier capability, as it can't equip both Boosted Comms and Expanded Hangar Bays, and it's just more expensive and so even if you were only going to use Boosted Comms anyways, you're paying more points for the same squadron-commanding capability. In return for giving up some of its carrier focus, the Quasar-II gains some combat support capability: with its red flak die, red anti-ship dice, and double weapon team slots, it has the potential to directly affect the game more effectively than the Quasar-I. For that reason, it's often best used a little more aggressively than the Quasar-I.

FTFY.

 

Great article! Thanks for the write-up!

Snipafist likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now that the Quasar article is finally online, I could update the Imperial section of the large fighter coverage (LFC) Squadrons Encyclopedia article John did most of the work on otherwise (have fun bringing the rest of that monster up to date @geek19). I'll copy the new blog post over to the forum as I did with the Quasar article, but the blog link is here for those who are interested.

As I made my way through older articles, I found a lot of the information about Imperial squadron-building and carrier shipswas outdated in our old LFC article and needed a pretty substantial overhaul due to Sloane-shaped changes in the meta and a Quasar-sized hole in the carrier ships section (what a difference one wave and a Rhymer errata makes!). With that said, the majority of the Imperial section of the article has been written anew. Here is the new section separated out:


I agree with pretty much everything John said above in terms of the basics. Your large fighter coverage groups should, at their core, be a means to deliver damage to enemy ships, as that allows their large points investment to go towards winning the full game rather than just winning the squadron mini-game. Bombers are quite adept at getting damage into ships due to the fact that they overheat defense tokens rapidly due to piling on damage in numerous small packets that defense tokens don't handle very well. Due to the increased focus on using squadrons to deliver damage to ships, more of your fleet will be based around commanding those squadrons and augmenting them in one form or another. Intel will be essential to keep your bombers doing their job.

I'm not invited into John's articles just to agree with him, though. I'm here to give you the Imperial perspective!

Upgrades

A quick side note regarding some of the ship upgrades John covered earlier: in general, Imperial carrier ships aren't great candidates for the Flight Commander+Fighter Coordination Team combination, as we lack support team slots on most of our ships, especially our more carrier-friendly ships. The good news compared to the Rebels is we have a lot of weapon team slots and getting access to Flight Controllers isn't as difficult, particularly on the Quasar. Similarly, we have offensive retrofit slots on all of our carrier-friendly ships and therefore getting some extra help from Boosted Comms and/or Expanded Hangar Bay isn't difficult if you want it. Boosted Comms in particular can be quite helpful on carriers to allow them to operate at a safer distance from serious combat and/or to ensure your odds of using all your Squadrons points remains high and you're not just barely out of range of a crucial squadron.

Ships

Imperials have a few good ship options for LFC fleets, and you're generally going to need a lot of squadron command muscle to get all your squadrons pushed around when you need them to do their thing. At the moment, I'd recommend considering any of the following for carrier duty in your fleet:

All of the above ships have access to offensive retrofits and some mixture of "good Squadrons value for their cost" and "can command a lot of squadrons at once," but the more important distinction is the Gozantis and Quasars are more dedicated carriers and the Star Destroyers are mixed-role carrier/battleships. How many and which type to use will largely depend on your fleet build and how much you're counting on the squadron mini-game as opposed to more conventional ship-on-ship attacks to carry the game for you. There are upsides and downsides to dedicated carriers versus mixed-role carriers, though, which I'll cover briefly below:

Dedicated carrier pros:

  • Cheap, and therefore the best cost-to-Squadrons ratio available
  • Often able to focus on issuing squadron commands most rounds to keep your squadron game a consistent threat
  • Lower Command values so anticipating when squadron commands will be necessary is easier to do

Dedicated carrier cons:

  • Undergunned for their cost and size
  • Fragile when pinned down by legitimate combat ships
  • Without squadrons to command, can struggle to meaningfully affect the game during their activation

Mixed-role carrier pros:

  • Comes packing serious guns that discourage lesser enemy ships from getting too close
  • Can contribute to combat alongside your anti-ship squadrons
  • If squadrons aren't available can still bring the fight to the enemy

Mixed-role carrier cons:

  • Can't function as 100% carrier and 100% battleship simultaneously - activations spent commanding squadrons are activations not issuing other commands that assist in keeping your best arcs on target and/or keeping the ship itself safe/healthy
  • Higher Command values can make knowing when you can and can't afford to command squadrons difficult without some additional points invested into command control upgrades
  • Higher points cost  makes fleet less activation-healthy and provides a mediocre Squadron value for the cost.

They're to some extent inverted forms of one another, with the pros of one flipping to the cons of the other. An LFC fleet with only dedicated carriers and no other combat ships is relying completely on winning the squadron mini-game and then using its bombers to crush the enemy fleet. If it loses the squadron mini-game, it doesn't have a prayer. Conversely, an LFC fleet with only mixed-role carriers will have a more well-rounded game plan that isn't overturned by setbacks in the squadron mini-game but it also won't have as consistent or powerful a squadron approach as its more dedicated cousin. How far you go in one direction or the other is up to you. The one "must" I can think of is if you're counting on Bomber squadrons (which most LFCs are), a Gozanti with Bomber Command Centers is nearly mandatory for the increased consistency in your bombing dice.

Once your squadron command needs are met, you can spend your remaining fleet points on combat vessels of whichever sort you think will best support the LFC element of your fleet. Raiders can be valuable additions, as they are cheap activations (which you'll want more of) and can accompany the bulk of your squadrons to provide flak coverage if enemy squadrons want to pick a fight with you, but they're not mandatory, especially if you've got a strong fighter presence.

Squadrons

Before I get to specific builds (of which I can categorize 4 major archetypes) for an Imperial LFC group, I want to reiterate what John said earlier about Intel and Escort. If you're running strong on bombers, you need Intel. This is especially true with Imperial squadrons due to the fact that bombing is pretty much all your bomber squadrons do. They do not handle getting stuck on enemy fighters well at all. Sure, Y-Wings and B-Wings would rather be bombing than dogfighting, but they can do all right against squadrons if they need to. Your TIE Bombers, conversely, are just miserable at dogfighting and anything that can get them on their way to maximize their bomber specialization is appreciated. With that said, Imperial fleets with Intel usually featurea Jumpmaster, either Dengar or a generic, or in some cases two generic Jumpmasters.

On a related note, putting together an LFC with Imperials can be a tricky balancing act and can be meta-dependent. This is due to how specialized most Imperial squadrons are: over-invest on fighters and support elements (Jumpmasters, TIE Advanced, regular fighter assistance) and you'll find they're not much good at helping you bomb things later on like the more mixed-role Rebel squadrons are. Under-invest in fighters and support elements and you'll find your big investment in bombers is getting held up with almost comically little effort. Feel free to toggle with any of the basic archetypes until you find the right mix that works for you. With that said, let's cover the three archetypes:

Note: these archetype builds were updated in wave 6 to have a bit more emphasis on fighter squadrons. With Sloane lurking about, you need some kind of a plan for handling tenacious enemy fighters should you encounter them, and counting on Escort shields to last for long against a determine Sloane fleet offensive without doing some serious fighting back is a recipe for failure.

1) TIE Defender spam

7 TIE Defenders and Maarek Stele (133 points)

This is the most straightforward and "hedge your bets" style of LFC group I can imagine Imperials running. Simply put, this is the Imperial version of the Rebel YT-2400 spam bomber wing. It needs little additional support beyond ships to issue squadron commands and one Gozanti with Bomber Command Center. The Defenders will prioritize destroying enemy squadrons and then putting damage into ships in the later game once that's been accomplished. Feel free to replace a Defender with Major Rhymer or Captain Jonus for no change in cost - Rhymer assists the Defender blob at focusing down one hull zone's shields by his range extender and Jonus is more useful in a fleet with the Defender swarm plus some serious combat vessels. Or use both, if you think you'll be okay with a bit less muscle!

The main downside to this approach is your bombing windows are uncertain as it brings no Intel. It won't have the same damage ceiling as a more dedicated bombing fleet because TIE Defenders (not including Maarek) are mediocre bombers, but it's not nearly so prone to getting stuck at times as the Defenders will happily dogfight until they can create an opening, unlike stuck TIE Bombers.

2) TIE Bomber wing

Major Rhymer, 3 TIE Bombers, Tempest Squadron, Maarek Stele, Jumpmaster, Mauler Mithel, Valen Rudor, Zertik Strom (132 points)

This is a more conventional "go big or go home" TIE Bomber group, weighing in at a substantial 10 squadrons, 6 of which are bombers (Maarek pulls double duty as a fighter ace and Tempest Squadron does the same as an Escort Bomber hybrid). With two sources of Escort and a Jumpmaster, you should be able to focus on either getting your bombers to their targets while your Escort and fighter squadrons handle the enemy or you can assign your Escort and Intel resources to keeping Mauler Mithel and his buddies in the fight to blow out fighter opposition and then move on to bombing a little bit later, depending on how serious your opposition is.

The main problem with this approach is you need to be able to command a good portion of those 10 squadrons. That requires a lot of squadron command muscle and it makes a big part of your fleet committed to the Rhymer ball of doom.

3) Imperial ace superfriends

Colonel Jendon, Maarek Stele, Boba Fett, Morna Kee, Zertik Strom, Bossk (132 points).

This combination is light on the total number of squadrons (just 6 of them) and only has 4 non-Rogues who need squadron commands. Only 2 of the actual squadrons are bombers (Boba Fett and Maarek Stele), so you may not even need a Bomber Command Center around. The idea is similar to the TIE Defender spam plan in that you're looking to wipe out enemy squadrons early and then bomb hard in the later game. With Colonel Jendon around, any of your potent aces gets an extra attack every turn, which allows you to focus on tearing up squadrons earlier on with powerhouses like Bossk and Maarek and then transitioning over to double-bombing with your stronger bombers like Boba Fett, Maarek, or Morna. Zertik provides some Escort coverage for the group, particularly Jendon, and can ping Bossk to activate his auto-accuracy ability. This group also operates well at range given Jendon is also packing Relay, just be sure to keep Jendon alive for as long as possible if you're relying on Relay.

You can produce an alternate version of this group by dropping Bossk and Zertik to pick up Darth Vader and Major Rhymer. The alternate version is better at bombing but doesn't have the same anti-squadron muscle.

The main downside of this build is it has few deployments and it won't produce the same laser-focused all-game-long bomber pain a more committed bomber group can. It doesn't benefit much from bomber support options like Bomber Command center, which keeps it cheap, but also keeps it from excelling in the same way. It's combo-oriented and it can suffer when crucial combo components are picked off earlier than you were expecting.

Experimentation is key

These are just the basic archetypes and there's a lot of room for experimentation by fusing elements of each together or by incorporating elements of the medium or small fighter coverage groups together with anti-ship squadrons. Beyond that, there are lots of tweaks that can be made here and there. Here are some examples:

  • Sub in a Lambda Shuttle (or two!) and bid for second player to milk an objective token-based objective (like Intel Sweep or Sensor Net) you can exploit with the Strategic keyword, particularly if you're using a source of extra squadron movement like Fighter Coordination Team or the Quasar Squall title
  • Replace TIE Bombers or some Defenders with Firesprays and/or Decimators to make a more compact Rogue bomber group
  • Create an alternative mixed-role fighter group by using a combination of TIE Phantoms and TIE Advanced instead of/in addition to TIE Defenders

So with all that said, hopefully you patient Imperials who made it to the bottom of this article have been rewarded with some food for thought. I encourage you to give John's advice careful consideration as he's on point regarding a lot of the basics of how to prioritize your commands and how to coordinate your bombers, even if he is Rebel scum who is about to show us a horrifying and banned picture of cartoon Screed in a stupid hat.

Edited by Snipafist
Democratus, Eggzavier and geek19 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you interested in this addendum about bringing up the effects Sloane and a Cymoon AFFM can have, or are those dedicated to their own articles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GiledPallaeon said:

Are you interested in this addendum about bringing up the effects Sloane and a Cymoon AFFM can have, or are those dedicated to their own articles?

Sloane will be her own self-contained thing, as I'd like the general advice to be as generic as possible and Sloane plays by her own odd rules.

I'll likely limit the Cymoon AFFM discussion to its own entry when that finally happens, but may update the LFC Imperial section about that as well once it officially drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Sloane will be her own self-contained thing, as I'd like the general advice to be as generic as possible and Sloane plays by her own odd rules.

I'll likely limit the Cymoon AFFM discussion to its own entry when that finally happens, but may update the LFC Imperial section about that as well once it officially drops.

Fair enough. I figured I'd mention it, since Sloane significantly improves Defender anti-ship (no bad rolls so no reason to not acc fish), and while  the Cymoon is no Quasar or I-1, speed 5 bombers (as Defenders can attest) are a menace that cannot be underestimated. It's also still Squadron 3 with a single OR, so same class of carrier as a Victory. I haven't put it on the table in that role yet but the theorycrafting is promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Now that the Quasar article is finally online, I could update the Imperial section of the large fighter coverage (LFC) Squadrons Encyclopedia article John did most of the work on otherwise (have fun bringing the rest of that monster up to date @geek19). I'll copy the new blog post over to the forum as I did with the Quasar article, but the blog link is here for those who are interested.

------------------------

So with all that said, hopefully you patient Imperials who made it to the bottom of this article have been rewarded with some food for thought. I encourage you to give John's advice careful consideration as he's on point regarding a lot of the basics of how to prioritize your commands and how to coordinate your bombers, even if he is Rebel scum who is about to show us a horrifying and banned picture of cartoon Screed in a stupid hat.

My update is just going to be more pictures of Screed in a trucker hat.  As for ACTUALLY updating it, I haven't looked at it yet.  Let's pretend that I've agreed to do that post-marathon, and hope everyone has forgotten me saying I would update it by then.

Eggzavier likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, geek19 said:

My update is just going to be more pictures of Screed in a trucker hat.  As for ACTUALLY updating it, I haven't looked at it yet.  Let's pretend that I've agreed to do that post-marathon, and hope everyone has forgotten me saying I would update it by then.

I've just been going in reverse - starting at the oldest articles and making my way slowly but surely back to the newer articles. In most cases it's just adding missing hyperlinks for articles that weren't written yet, but in some cases there's some editing to be done or some text removal/replacement due to changes from wave 5 to wave 6. It's not so bad unless there are major updates required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found myself with a lot of spare time today, so I did a lot of blog-updating administrative work.

The Admiral Ozzel, Intro to objective selection, Wave one red objectives, Wave one yellow objectives, Wave one blue objectives, Gozanti Cruisers, fleet support upgrades, Bidding for initiative, Bidding for initiative 2: fleet examples, The attack sequence and you!, The basics of fleet building, and General Tagge articles have all been updated today. Nothing major - mostly hyperlinks were added to link to other articles that were produced later and were relevant, text was cleared up, some additions were made account for new meta situations (particularly regarding Sloane and the Quasar on the Imperial side) and some tweaks to Tagge's article post-TRC nerf, which has made him even worse, sadly 😞.

Slowly but surely everything is being brought up to date. It's not so much wave 6 causing major changes in the content of articles so much as the formatting of articles and the existence of lots of new reference points in the blog that were created after our earlier articles but didn't exist at the time of writing for older articles. Revisions in the future once I'm caught up should be much simpler for articles that don't need major content updates.

Green Knight and Darth Sanguis like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now