Jump to content
jocke01

Armada my problems with an amazing game

Recommended Posts

Hi

I really like armada, it's a really well designed game but I have some problems with it that I wanted to share and see if it's just me or not.


First thing I the scale of the game. In the start it seemed pretty fine with small and large bases just like x-wing, the ships didn't "bump" too often and it did offer different sizes on arcs. With the jump to 400 points and addition of large bases and flottillas. I feel the Bump and ramming in this game have taken too big a part.

last and first activation ramming with engine techs is really a bull way of playing IMO. It's also pretty weird that the ships don't move att all if they get bumped. A ship at speed 4 can stand still for 2 turns in a row while bumping, and if it bumps a flotilla it doesen't even take damage. Since there are more bases and larger ones, it's quite common to see a cluster **** where ships just stand still and bump for a while untill one explodes, it's weird.

I would like to see some different rules on ramming, either a maximum of one ramming per activation so no abuse of engine techs or ramming techs as they should be called. Maybe different damage depending on scale. For example a small ship ramming a medium or large ship get's a face up card instead of down because of size. Maybe it's just me. The fleet size increase also makes it hard to play all 6 rounds in a tournament.


Secondly is the objectives. 6 rounds with objectives makes the games alot more interesting don't get me wrong. This problem was worse before the CC expansion since we had fewer objectives, but I find that it's the same objectives played more often than not. There is pretty hard to choose 3 objectives to your list that you gain some great advantage in, if you try to design a list to work great with red, good with yellow. It's pretty hard to also gain great advantage in the blue one. Well at least in my experience. For me if I bring a list that will go second, it's usually the same objective everytime unless my opponent is "inexperienced". I would like to see that the objective get's decided randomly from the second players hand, it would add some variety without giving the second or first player additional advantage.

Thirdly is the nature of the game. It's full of bumps with the very un precise manouver tool and squadrons that get's moved around alot. However when measuring every mm counts. So many games of mine have come down to one dice or one damage that allow a 150+ ship live or die and victory with it. In X-wing the difference between ranges is usually one dice or so, in armada you can more than double the dice used beacause of range. I would like to see some sort of 1/2 or 1/3 points for very damaged ships. Maybe not half like in X-wing but, something. I also think alot of critical cards are pretty lame at this point, like oh no my star destroyer can't attack at long range, too bad were in the 5th round and we are att close or maybe medium range of each other :P. Since faceup cards are repairable pretty easy in armada, I would like to see a new damage deck with a bit more teeth.

Lastly is squadrons. With rouge, flotillas, relay and bosted coms you can really make use of squadrons now. However the expensive ones are pretty meh, at least on the rebel side. I would like to see some reduction in firepower from squadrons under half strenght. A squadron that have taken massive casualties should have fewer ships and therefore fewer dice. The large ones like hera in the ghost is pretty hard to get value form since 4 dice seems like the maxiumum. Hera can do a maximum of 4 damage and a X-wing can do a maximum of 4 damage, however hera cost more than double points. Sure she have a pretty decent ability but she loses both relay and strategic for that ability and that brace rarely get's used. Maybe she is better when in a fleet led by a better commander than me but it's my 2 cents.

Anyway, that's that of my chest. The game is pretty well designed and I like it. It's just some stuff that really bothers me. Agree or disagree? The latest errata for demolisher, rhymer and reikaan have given me my love back for the game as it's seems more balanced but there is still some stuff that feels unpolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of the stuff is how its played I find,  for example Hera... I like to use her + a couple of other sqns, deploy on one side of the board oppersite to where my ships are and they fly off down that edge and 'hook' round to catch that flottila /small ship with the other admiral on ... or do a couple of extra points of damage to finish off a ship thats run away...

 

For bumps & RAMs I find that if its a small ship they dont last two turns once they bumped... as they have one damage through the shields and they aren't 'locked' so can be shot... its also useful to hit a ship you want to kill so it cant run out of ARC /Range of your subsequent activations.  Don't see it as a problem see it as a tactical aid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ramming is sound. You can see a list geared around it and play against it. It’s also not that common so makes a different play style further adding to the depth of the game. 

You say it’s quite common to see a cluster of ships I have been to numerous tournaments and not seen this, it begs the question that if regularly near you you find this doesn’t this directly reflect on your meta and the flying skills of the players. I never see it around me or in the tournaments I have been to near and far, as for the ability to finish 6 turns. Again you get stragglers bit that is normally down to a specific list that takes time or a player that is a bit slower either because they are new or more methodical, again it’s not the norm. 

 

The idea of dropping dice when squads get damaged or ange related will make a fairly complicated game insanely tricky and longer to manage so am not in favour of this. 

 

Apologies for the negative post post but I dot really see your issues being widespread and the solutions would just bog the game down more. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I feel like your concerns are based largely around the idea that Armada is similar to X-Wing. The simple fact is they are very different games with similar components. 

Armada isn't scaled like X-wing. It's designed to be more inclusive. So that an Imperial class and a CR-90 can both be on the mat and still have room to play. The scale is designed to create a perspective.  


The fact that you're experiencing so much bumping makes me question how your meta plays. I think I may see a bump once a game, usually my own fault when pushing a flotilla too ambitiously. Even when people bring ram fleets, they don't tend to do well enough to justify an sort of frustration. Though, I will say, I agree,  I think there should be some form of silhouette when it comes to ramming. In the rogue One movie we see an Imperial class ram a GR-75.... and the GR does not fair well. The idea that a large ship can ram a small ship and do just as much damage as if a small ship had rammed seems a little silly to me. 

I can't say I think there's much wrong with the objectives, other than red being too unbalanced.... Most wanted and targeting beacons are starting to rule our meta, but other wise, I rarely have a hard time adding objectives to a fleet. 

If you're having issues with bumping, you may wanna check out 

It may help if constantly adjusting squadrons is your main cause of bumping. 


As for adjusting dice pools, I have to disagree. In x-wing you're given advantages or disadvantages based on range, in Armada those are built into the range mechanic using 3 different types of dice to control range advantages. I do think damaged squadrons should lose dice. I especially think that bomber squadrons should lose their keyword at less than 1/2, but I'm just an anti-squadron grump.

Personally, I think the game is in a great place right now. If there's anything to change, it isn't major.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone else that started as an X-Wing player all I can say is try not to compare this to X-Wing. There are some things X_Wing handles better, but for the most part X-Wing would do better in adopting from Armada. One thing I would like to see and this would help those bump builds is not allowing to shoot with ships that are in contact and not being able to use the arc that is in contact. I wish the squads were not as relevant as they are, they should be a bother and not a main threat, I think they could have done a better anti-squad mechanic, maybe more dice; but this is something I gripe about (not a fan of flotillas as ships, think they should be separate or included with squads) and accept. The different dice for different range is BRILLIANT. X-Wing would be much better if it used this mechanic and I like the defensive tokens vs green dice. My community is not super active and we are not meta at all so some of the stuff that bugs me in X-Wing tournaments I do not see in Armada. I do not know if there will be a regionals around me this year and I will try and make it if there is and would probably get my first exposure to the meta - I have never seen a Rhymerball, Reikan zombies or 3+ flotilla builds. X-Wing is 70-90% build and Armada is more forgiving of unbalanced match ups of builds; I much prefer player skill meaning more to a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collisions.  They happen.  Armada is the equivalent of actual naval warfare, just in space.  We are limited to a 2D plane of warfare for obvious reasons, but collisions happen.  They happen in the movies, they happen in the comics and books.  Heck, look at real life naval collisions.  There is a long list of military ships damaged and even sunk by colliding with other ships.  In the last year, two US military vessels have been involved in collisions in peaceful operations while both sides were likely trying to avoid one another.  Collisions in military history (and star wars history) have been accidental and intentional. 

As for collision rules.  As with any game, you have to suspend disbelief.  Rules and gameplay need to be manageable and relatively simple.  Sure, an ISD colliding with a GR75 should bounce that transport off it's hull and send it flying out of the way.  But how do you craft rules that handle this?  And you are just talking a large vs a flotilla.  How are those rules affected when its a large vs a small, or a large vs a medium, or a medium vs a small.  Does it matter who had the most momentum.  Mass would realistically play a role.  What about a small vs a small.  I mean a MC30 is significantly larger than a CR90.  Apply some calculus and we can create a realistic collision experience....but most players would likely find this tedious.  Are the collision rules great? No.  Are they realistic? No.  Are they playable and easy to understand? Yes.  Is there room for improvement? Likely...but you risk introducing new tactics.  You complain about engine tech ramming attacks (a fairly realistic tactic).  But now consider a more realistic collision system where a larger ship colliding with a smaller ship causes the smaller ship to get moved somewhat like fighters.  Now you could have people building fleets around the idea of shoving people outside of the game area.  Can you imagine the salt when a 3 ISD fleets wins by just blocking movement near the edge of the board.  I'm sure you wouldn't complain about that issue right?

Your differing damage based on size is pretty solid though.  Makes sense and easy to implement.  But does it not just create a new meta like above?  Run my ISDs around and make them super maneuverable.  Ram everything.  Damage plus critical effects to all the mediums and lights means I can just win a game by ramming everything.  The meta shifts to everyone just running 3 large ships.

Your argument about crits is baseless.  Every crit has this issue.  There are times when it can be EXTREMELY effective.  And there are other times the same crit is virtually meaningless.  The crit lands on a ship that it basically doesn't affect, or at a point in the game where it doesn't matter.  Other times or against other ships that crit is extremely effective.  While somewhat random, I love the drama that unfolds with every critical.  You hold your breath, quickly turn over the card, and breath a sigh of relief...or cry 'game over man, game over' if its the one you can't deal with.

As for the squads...I'm not sure what to say.  I have no idea how you don't see the value in the elite squadrons.  This is more about builds than anything.  Does Hera make a good VCX100? No.  But her abilities, with the right build, make an impressive little group of fighters.  Is Luke a worthwhile investment on his own? No, but combined with the right pilots and squads he's extremely effective.  You can't just throw Mauler in with a random group of TIEs and expect to get his value back from that.  You have to build a plan around your fighters just like you do with your ships.  The elite squadrons are force multipliers.  Alone they are a waste of points.  Added to the right group of squadrons and they make the group much more powerful than if it was just another basic squadron.  Every elite has it's use if you build for it, and all of them can be effective.  Many require a few elites to really gel into a cohesive power base.

Does the game have issues? Of course.  Every game does.  Could some things be improved? Absolutely.  Many of the current minor issues didn't exist at creation though, so couldn't be predicted.  Complete rewrites of rules creates issue though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With longer firing ranges and ... a MINIMUM firing range you would have a lot less clutter and knocking over of pieces, which would make play smoother, easier, and less time consuming. The fact that all squads now need to be very close to ships to fire compounds the clutter problem. I recently played a game with few squads on the table and lots of fast moving ships. Wow, world of difference in enjoyment, maintenance and clutter than the 20+ squad slugfests I'm usually in.

I'm hoping a v2.0 somehow addresses all of these, possibly with just longer firing ranges for everything, ans possibly a minimum firing range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Megatronrex said:

Please god no don't make me do calculus just to play my favorite game.

Luckily, so far as I understand starship collision physics, actual calculus is totally unnecessary to achieve an acceptable approximation, which could really be a short algebra expression with constants for the two ships, and variables for speed and relative course. (Calculus in my experience only exists to get out of doing calculus. This would be no exception.)

That said, I would oppose such a change on one simple reason: Armada is a game, not a sim. I too sometimes want something a bit more rigorous than Armada. Tactical depth notwithstanding, it isn't an exceptionally detailed system and that is intentional by the designers. I've encountered tabletop games that are much closer to simulations (Saganami Island Tactical Simulator springs to mind), and there are elements of Armada that could be tweaked to make it more rigorous. For example, overall scale could be more defined, with longer weapons range relative to ship velocities. In practice though, that means a larger game space, making it harder to play in a tournament setting. As it stands, for all its flaws, Armada is a fun game that I enjoy, and I know whatever supposed benefits a V2 could bring, it wouldn't be Armada any more. That's not say I couldn't enjoy that one too, but radical changes to game mechanics (e.g. a minimum range that would probably make the clutter problem worse) should be considered very carefully by the designers.

Share this post


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

One thing I would like to see and this would help those bump builds is not allowing to shoot with ships that are in contact and not being able to use the arc that is in contact.

That might be a good idea but the only time a ship would be in contact is if it finished its move exactly touching another ship.. which would then mean they didn't hit each other.  I suppose that after trying to perform a higher-speed maneuver they could end up touching in the same way but this has never happened to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, durandal343 said:

That might be a good idea but the only time a ship would be in contact is if it finished its move exactly touching another ship.. which would then mean they didn't hit each other.  I suppose that after trying to perform a higher-speed maneuver they could end up touching in the same way but this has never happened to me.

I forgot about backing up to not touching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the squadron issue.. as a mainly Rebel player I am used to having a pretty big ball of squads and, on occasion, my opponent will also have a big ball.  Inevitably we end up smacking our squadron balls together and it does get to be a bit of a mess but I can't think of a better mechanic for the whole system.  When we aren't used to the particular squad makeup we have it does take some time and fussing to apply damage and measure and figure things out etc. but it does get better with practice.  Placement accuracy without tokens or markers is difficult but we do the best we can and chalk it up to "part of the game."  It has never really gotten in the way of me enjoying the game.

As far as other clutter.. hovering the measurement tool.. or just using the end with the point and having the rest hang out the back (or buying and making a bunch of short tools) has worked great for us.  Sometimes removing the actual models and stands and just leaving the base on the table will help with measuring and moving in traffic.  The only problem I've had is when I tried to fly an evil Imperial fleet with some ISDs and those models are so big and hang over the base so much that I was constantly hitting them.  But they're beautiful! so don't want that to change :)

In the end these are just my opinions and for some these issues seriously impede game enjoyment so I don't want to dismiss others thoughts but I feel the game is in a pretty good place both for playability and balance.

Also any euphemism in this post is purely accidental.  We video our games and nothing inappropriate ever happens..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm.

Bumps are not and cannot actually BE collisions in Armada - ships DIE when they hit each other. Instead, that damage represents the structural stress taken when two ships frantically try to avoid actually HITTING each other. I must admit that I do actually HATE the idea of intentionally using the bumping rules to deal more damage - I almost wish that the bumping ship took more damage than the bumped ship, but it's frankly pretty low on my set of priorities of what needs fixin' with Armada.

The objective system, objectively, is mediocre. Like you said, there's a couple of really good ones, a couple that favor VERY specific fleet builds, and the rest are... not as good as the good ones. Some of them are FUN, but fun and competitive don't mix well without some randomization.

The game almost feels better in Vassal, where you don't have to worry about tools and losing places and all that. There are improvised solutions, like washers to put underneath squadrons and where you want to place said squadrons, but it almost feels as though the game is working AGAINST that with the no multiple tool official rule.

Squadrons are an abstraction, period.There are some problems with the implementation, but going MORE specific would bog the game down. Ideally, a wargame should wrap up in under 3 hours, preferably in the 2-2.5 hour range - too short and you probably have the game size set TOO small (40k in 40 Minutes comes to mind, as does X-Wing!) because one bad roll or mistake made means the game is over;  too long and the rules set is probably just dragging down (lately I've been having that problem with Malifaux. Too many interactions and decisions to be made as well as things to keep track of...)

Minimum range? Yes, the ranges in Star Wars are ridiculously short;  my headcanon is that electronic counter-measures are so strong that you HAVE to be right up in their grille just to see them relatively accurately, let alone HIT them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @iamfanboy said some succinct things. 

I'm gonna start this off by saying, there are good things about this game. Honestly, at this point, these type of arguments are not that useful... cuz sadly, it feels like these should have been dealt with while the game was in concept stage. Also at some point you have to make a game that works, is simple to play, and is fun. There's a lot of constraints. 

One wonders exactly what the point of scale required that made the game end up in this iteration. was it the Cr90 detail level? 

Imo, I think the bases are too big, movement vs shooting range is ridiculous. I've really thought about making my own version of the game where all the firing ranges are doubled. 

Bumping is kind of silly. Its so undramatic. 

Squadrons as an abstraction right now are fine I think. I just wish there were more game mechanics that caused the game to spread instead of focus fire as efficiently as possible. 

 

If the bases were say 50-75% smaller, firing ranges twice as long (a la see Xwing epic range ruler), it wasn't turn based, that would be a wonderful wonderful game. But as it is, I'm happy enough with it now to keep having fun with it. 

I bumped a MC80 to death recently with Cr90 Rambos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A base size smaller than the current Small would be great for the actual SMALL ships - you could easily fit the CR90, Raider, Hammerhead, and flotillas into a 30mm x 50-60mm base, and it would differentiate the 'tiny' ships from the ACTUAL small ships without having the bases themselves look strange. The main problem would be the dial, but I'd probably design in two shield arcs and keep the weapon arcs - that way tiny ships would HAVE a disadvantage compared to the bigger ones, with much weaker shields.

Plus, it really sucks that a Raider or CR90 occupies so much real estate for maneuvering; last Friday I trapped an MC80 with my ISD one way and a Raider the other way. If the Raider were a bit smaller, he might have been able to fit a turn in and not be stuck ramming the ISD for multiple points of damage.

Edited by iamfanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I think @iamfanboy said some succinct things. 

I'm gonna start this off by saying, there are good things about this game. Honestly, at this point, these type of arguments are not that useful... cuz sadly, it feels like these should have been dealt with while the game was in concept stage. Also at some point you have to make a game that works, is simple to play, and is fun. There's a lot of constraints. 

One wonders exactly what the point of scale required that made the game end up in this iteration. was it the Cr90 detail level? 

Imo, I think the bases are too big, movement vs shooting range is ridiculous. I've really thought about making my own version of the game where all the firing ranges are doubled. 

Bumping is kind of silly. Its so undramatic. 

Squadrons as an abstraction right now are fine I think. I just wish there were more game mechanics that caused the game to spread instead of focus fire as efficiently as possible. 

 

If the bases were say 50-75% smaller, firing ranges twice as long (a la see Xwing epic range ruler), it wasn't turn based, that would be a wonderful wonderful game. But as it is, I'm happy enough with it now to keep having fun with it. 

I bumped a MC80 to death recently with Cr90 Rambos. 

Weapons ranges have always felt off in Armada.  I have to agree with that entirely.  But extending the range won't fix the problem and could create new ones.

It seems like it would help at first.  Double all ranges and suddenly the CR90s are actually shooting from long range.  This seems great.  You don't have to close on targets as you are sniping from the fringes.  However, it would completely kill slower moving ships and ships that focus on black or even blue dice.  How does a gladiator ever close to range?  So you either move the meta to completely red dice and everything else sucks....or your now double the movement range so that slower ships and black die throwers can close the range gap....now ships are bashing into each other again.  With the increased movement, you also have issue with table size...so now we need a 6x12 foot table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

A base size smaller than the current Small would be great for the actual SMALL ships - you could easily fit the CR90, Raider, Hammerhead, and flotillas into a 30mm x 50-60mm base, and it would differentiate the 'tiny' ships from the ACTUAL small ships without having the bases themselves look strange. The main problem would be the dial, but I'd probably design in two shield arcs and keep the weapon arcs - that way tiny ships would HAVE a disadvantage compared to the bigger ones, with much weaker shields.

Plus, it really sucks that a Raider or CR90 occupies so much real estate for maneuvering; last Friday I trapped an MC80 with my ISD one way and a Raider the other way. If the Raider were a bit smaller, he might have been able to fit a turn in and not be stuck ramming the ISD for multiple points of damage.

See exactly.  The bases shoulda been smaller, and there should be more room for maneuvering in the game. 

 

@kmanweiss, look, at this point its just an abstraction of "what ifs" that shoulda been done at concept stage. So, take things with a grain of salt. Just remember that close range also gets doubled. That's a LOT of area that is super deadly. The game would need a massive rebalance. So, I'm just not going to argue with you: cuz you're right, but also missing the point. 

And yes, either playing form the long ends of the 6x3, or a 4x4 would have made more sense in this variant. 

Honestly, 4x4 with doubled range looks pretty nice. 

 

Also, now FFG is handicapped into the future.  How do you make those stupidly large ships? Like the FO thing thats like massively massively more larger than even the SSD. And the SSD itself is like at least as large as the map. Armada learned lessons from Xwing on balance, but not on complexity and scaling. Xwing currently has huge scaling issues, which sadly was a selling point of the early game. 

 

Also, one more gripe. The whole shields and sliders and cards and where tokens go is utterly clumsy. Shield dials popping out of the ship? Making huge numbers of rules for overlapping and obstruction. Its really a big mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the classic Battletech range problem - well, any wargame really, but it's very noticable with Battletech.

'Long' range with in-game weapons totaled to BARELY a kilometer, with short range being 90 meters - about the same length as an American football field - in a game focused on 10-meter tall giant robots bristling with lasers and missiles. This was so that you could actually FIT the game into a reasonable playing surface. 

Note that MODERN DAY INFANTRY WEAPONS, the kind humped about by a typical squad, have similar ranges. Actual vehicle weapons have multi-kilometer ranges - the longest range kill ever made by a tank was around 5 kilometers, or three MILES, away. Jet-carried AAMs have operational ranges in the 150 kilometer (90 mile) range!

In 1986 one of the Battletech game designers suggested in an article that in-universe ECM was so strong longer range combat was simply impossible - yes, you could SHOOT, but you'd miss. While it was never officially adopted, it explained a lot -

And the same idea could explain a lot of Star Wars, like how the big turbolasers are aimed by a team of gunners instead of being computer controlled, why we see ships at absurdly close (for interstellar) distances in combat, and so much else. So the game of Armada once again reflects the 'reality' of Star Wars as we've seen it - so changing game ranges would be counterproductive and also make the game differ from 'reality'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think the collision rules are fine, particularly due to their sinplicity, one "fix" or house rule could be that when a ram occurs, you roll dice. Say, each ship rolls a blue die and does a face down damage card on a hit or crit. If you want more granularity, alter that when ships of two different sizes collide. Maybe the smaller one does damage only on a crit and the larger one rolls a black die (or perhaps a red die, which can still give two hits but has a greater chance of missing, as if the smaller ship was able to avoid the ram).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt mind seeing a trial of ram damage scaled to relative  ship size.

So (say) 

Small ship hits (or hit by)  flotilla- outcome as present.

Hits small ship - outcome as present

Hits or hit bymedium ship - take one face up one face down. Medium takes one face down.

Hits or hit by large ship - one face up two face down. Large ship takes a face down.

Im sure there is no risk of unintended consequences.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with OP on ramming.  GP makes a good point about simulation vs game.  I've not been a fan of the collision rules in Armada though it's worked for me on many occasions.  How to change them?  

Ramming ships with your ship has been a viable naval tactic since the days of the ancient Greeks.  As a counterpoint, avoiding being rammed has also been around just as long.  The Armada combat mechanic doesn't account for three dimensional space very well (and I don't think it should for most things).  However, it could be acknowledged/accommodated with a change to ramming mechanics.  Basically, it comes down to a choice.  Both the moving player (MP) and the obstructing player (OBP) have a choice to ram/be rammed.  The MP declares if they want to ram or not (assuming it's possible/imminent).  If they do and the OBP doesn't want to avoid it then it occurs as it normally would except for damage (see below).  If OBP does want to avoid it, then you compare all of the tick marks for each ship at its current speed and whomever has the most, wins.  For example, an ISD at speed 2 wants to ram a CR90 at speed 3.  ISD has 2 total ticks and the CR90 has 3 at that speed.  Therefore, the CR90 player, wishing to avoid the collision, is able to maneuver to avoid being rammed.  The ISD is placed where it would end up and the CR90 is moved in a manner similar to squadrons except it will still be facing the same direction and will be as close to its original position touching the ISD base.  A stationary ship cannot avoid being rammed but the MP can choose to avoid ramming a stationary ship.  In the event of equal tick marks, the ramming player wins.  

Damage would be a bit different based off of mass.  Large ships give out 3 damage (1 crit, 2 facedown), medium 2, small 1, and flotillas always only take 1 regardless of what hit them but otherwise remain the same.  The shield face involved would take the first damage with defense tokens being playable (you can redirect, brace, contain, scatter).  So, in the scenario above, given a ram, the ISD player would take 1 damage to the front hull zone (take out one shield or deal 1 card if no shields) and the corvette would take 3 damage to the side closest to the ISD.  If it was a flotilla being rammed, the ISD would take none and the flotilla would take 1.

A bit more complicated than the current system but not overly so.  There's no calculus haha.  It would address the 3D nature of space, the use of ramming as a viable tactic, the ability to avoid being rammed (especially by a larger ship) if you're faster and more maneuverable, the effects of mass on damage (i.e. more mass means more damage), shields providing protection, and using defense tokens to mitigate some damage. 

Edited by WGNF911

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this stuff about big ships making more ramming damage isn't necessary. Smaller ships have less Hull. So the damage is actually higher. A CR90 ramming an ISD is 25% damaged, the ISD only 9%.

If you would change the rules to give the CR90 three damage cards (with a potential forth for "Structural Damage"-Crit) it would become 75% to 100% against 9%. You may find that "realistic" (and Star Wars has never been realistic at all!) but it be too unbalanced. Quite soon, we wouldn't see any small ships other than life boats in a galaxy far far away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen ramming happen the most for newer players, as they play the game like X-Wing.

IE., you win by killing all the enemy, and you kill all the enemy by 'pointing at them'.  If my fleet is pointing at your fleet, and your fleet is pointing at mine....we collide.

That's not what the game is about.

You are flying, in many cases, kilometer-long ships with crews in the thousands.  These things represent a considerable amount of wealth and effort to build 'in universe'...the ship commanders would be very well trained to NOT just throw them into combat.  Stick to the objective!  It's possible (desirable, often enough even 'in game' - certainly 'in universe') to win the battle just by maneuver and positioning, with no ships taking any damage at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WGNF911 said:

I agree with OP on ramming.  GP makes a good point about simulation vs game.  I've not been a fan of the collision rules in Armada though it's worked for me on many occasions.  How to change them?  

Ramming ships with your ship has been a viable naval tactic since the days of the ancient Greeks.  As a counterpoint, avoiding being rammed has also been around just as long.  The Armada combat mechanic doesn't account for three dimensional space very well (and I don't think it should for most things).  However, it could be acknowledged/accommodated with a change to ramming mechanics.  Basically, it comes down to a choice.  Both the moving player (MP) and the obstructing player (OBP) have a choice to ram/be rammed.  The MP declares if they want to ram or not (assuming it's possible/imminent).  If they do and the OBP doesn't want to avoid it then it occurs as it normally would except for damage (see below).  If OBP does want to avoid it, then you compare all of the tick marks for each ship at its current speed and whomever has the most, wins.  For example, an ISD at speed 2 wants to ram a CR90 at speed 3.  ISD has 2 total ticks and the CR90 has 3 at that speed.  Therefore, the CR90 player, wishing to avoid the collision, is able to maneuver to avoid being rammed.  The ISD is placed where it would end up and the CR90 is moved in a manner similar to squadrons except it will still be facing the same direction and will be as close to its original position touching the ISD base.  A stationary ship cannot avoid being rammed but the MP can choose to avoid ramming a stationary ship.  In the event of equal tick marks, the ramming player wins.  

Damage would be a bit different based off of mass.  Large ships give out 3 damage (1 crit, 2 facedown), medium 2, small 1, and flotillas always only take 1 regardless of what hit them but otherwise remain the same.  The shield face involved would take the first damage with defense tokens being playable (you can redirect, brace, contain, scatter).  So, in the scenario above, given a ram, the ISD player would take 1 damage to the front hull zone (take out one shield or deal 1 card if no shields) and the corvette would take 3 damage to the side closest to the ISD.  If it was a flotilla being rammed, the ISD would take none and the flotilla would take 1.

A bit more complicated than the current system but not overly so.  There's no calculus haha.  It would address the 3D nature of space, the use of ramming as a viable tactic, the ability to avoid being rammed (especially by a larger ship) if you're faster and more maneuverable, the effects of mass on damage (i.e. more mass means more damage), shields providing protection, and using defense tokens to mitigate some damage. 

These ideas are all great for improving "sim" fidelity, but keep in mind that they also have a very dramatic impact on balance.  Suddenly, MC30s are pretty much worthless for their primary role.  The whole point of the Hammerhead is also completely obviated.  Really, since this substantially increases the value of hull over shields, the entire Rebel faction would need its price points reduced, and also shifts the value of all small ships in both factions way down... except flotillas, whose stock now goes way up in relation to the other small ships, since now not only are they effective blockers, they're the ONLY effective small blockers.

So, this is great for ISDs and flotillas.  Less so for pretty much everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...