# Fixing activation counts, idea #eleventy-Q: alternate by command total rather than ship count

## Recommended Posts

So, right now, we all know the activation sequence - player 1 activates one ship, then player 2 activates one ship, then player 1 activates one ship, etc., until all ships are activated.  It's a system that treats any ship of any size as being exactly equal to any other.

But...why?  Why not activate based on total command points, and alternate back and forth until they are equal or exceeded?

IE., player 1 activates a 'command rating 3' ship, now player 2 activates ships until they equal or exceed 3 total command rating, then it goes back to player 1 to activate a ship.  etc.

How that might look (both players starting at 0):

Player 1: Activates Gozanti (1 command = 1 total, over to player 2)

Player 2: Activates GR75 (1 command = 1 total, equal or higher than player 1, so back to them)

Player 1: Activates VSD (+3 command = 4 total, so over to player 2)

Player 2: Activates GR75 (+1 command = 2 total)

Player 2: Activates GR75 (+1 command = 3 total)

Player 2: Activates MC80 (+3 command = 6 total, equal or higher than player 1, so passing back to player 1)

Player 1: Activates VSD (+3 command = 7 total, equal or higher than player 2, so back to 2)

Player 2: Activates MC30 (+2 command = 8 total, equal or higher than player 1, so back over to them)

Player 1: Activates ISD (+3 command = 10 total, which tops player 2, and passes back to them)

Player 2: Activates MC30 (+2 command = 10 total, and out of activations so done)

...alternatively, you can just look at the back-and-forth rather than a running total.  (IE., 'I just activated 3 command worth of ships, so now you have to activate at least that many')  Without the running total, you lose some of the overflow from one activation to a next to reduce it, but I'm not sure that's a problem one way or the other.  Either way, IMHO, works a lot better than the current system:

Player 1: Activates Gozanti

Player 2: Activates GR75

Player 1: Activates VSD

Player 2: Activates GR75

Player 1: Activates VSD

Player 2: Activates GR75

Player 1: Activates ISD

Player 2: Activates MC80

Player 2: Activates MC30

Player 2: Activates MC30

But why?

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geek19 said:

But why?

Because bringing along 3x flotillas as nothing but activation padding is a valid tactic right now, and that's lame.  It looks silly on the table, it requires buying mostly-useless units just to pad a list, etc...all because it's currently trivially easy to exploit the current activation game mechanic.

##### Share on other sites

Here are some situations where I see issues with this type of activation.

Situation 1:

• Player 1: Activates VSD
• Player 2: Activates TRC90
• Player 2: Activates TRC90
• Player 2: Activates TRC90

Right now one of those TRC90s could easily go down. With this method, they can all fire off and dance out of range.

Situation 2:

• Player 1: AFII
• Player 2: GSD
• Player 2: ISD

That combo can evaporate a lot of ships with no chance to respond.

Situation 3:

• Player 1: ISD
• Player 2: MC30
• Player 2: MC30

Same as above.

Really this allows you to shift when you're triggering your "multiple in a row" activations. Rather than waiting to the end, I can now do it at the beginning of the round. It would become a game of waiting out for your opponents first Command 3 activation, then triggering a 2+2 or a 2+3 combo. You are now still rewarded for having more Command 1 ships to play the waiting game.

##### Share on other sites

Astrodar beat me to it.. and said it better.

##### Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

Here are some situations where I see issues with this type of activation.

Situation 1:

• Player 1: Activates VSD
• Player 2: Activates TRC90
• Player 2: Activates TRC90
• Player 2: Activates TRC90

Right now one of those TRC90s could easily go down. With this method, they can all fire off and dance out of range.

Situation 2:

• Player 1: AFII
• Player 2: GSD
• Player 2: ISD

That combo can evaporate a lot of ships with no chance to respond.

Situation 3:

• Player 1: ISD
• Player 2: MC30
• Player 2: MC30

Same as above.

Really this allows you to shift when you're triggering your "multiple in a row" activations. Rather than waiting to the end, I can now do it at the beginning of the round. It would become a game of waiting out for your opponents first Command 3 activation, then triggering a 2+2 or a 2+3 combo. You are now still rewarded for having more Command 1 ships to play the waiting game.

I'm not sure how any of these situations differ from the current rules, though?  If player 1 only has a VSD, and player 2 has three CR90s...then the VSD activates followed by three CR90s right now.

Same with the other two listings.

I think you'd need to work out a larger list to highlight the problem patterns better (at which point you'll notice that they tend to go away)

Quote

Really this allows you to shift when you're triggering your "multiple in a row" activations. Rather than waiting to the end, I can now do it at the beginning of the round. It would become a game of waiting out for your opponents first Command 3 activation, then triggering a 2+2 or a 2+3 combo. You are now still rewarded for having more Command 1 ships to play the waiting game.

...sort of, sure.  It gives you some ability to move a 'multiple in a row' activation forward, but only activations of low-command ships vs the largest ships (a command-3 ship is going to trigger the activation switch no matter what)

And yes, it still doesn't completely kill the advantage of having some command-1 ships to allow flexibility in your activation order.

But what it does do is make them less critical.  They give you some flexibility, now, instead of just completely ending the enemy's ability to shoot at your big ships until the following turn.

And, of course, you could just look at each activation as a one-off instead of having rollover.  IE., in the first scenario in the OP, that would look different:

Player 1: Activates Gozanti (1 command = 1 total)

Player 2: Activates GR75 (1 command = 1 total, equal or higher so resets for next activations)

Player 1: Activates VSD (3 command = 3 total)

Player 2: Activates GR75 (1 command = 1 total)

Player 2: Activates GR75 (+1 command = 2 total)

Player 2: Activates MC80 (+3 command = 5 total, finally equal or higher so resets)

Player 1: Activates VSD (3 command = 3 total)

Player 2: Activates MC30 (2 command = 2 total)

Player 2: Activates MC30 (+2 command = 4 total, finally equal or higher so passes over)

Player 1: Activates ISD (3 command = 3 total, end of turn)

The idea, either way, is to space out activations, rather than clumping everything together at the beginning of the turn and so providing artificial incentive to bring along a lot of nothing-but-padding ships.  I don't think that doing away with them entirely is good.

Edited by xanderf

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, xanderf said:

I'm not sure how any of these situations differ from the current rules, though?  If player 1 only has a VSD, and player 2 has three CR90s...then the VSD activates followed by three CR90s right now.

Are people in your meta running single activation fleets? Let's take your example fleet. ISD, VSD, VSD, Gozanti. Under current rules, VSD, CR90, ISD, CR90, VSD, CR90, Gozanti, [whatever remaining Rebel ships]. All three SDs have a chance to blow those CR90s out of the air. Under your rules [VSD, CR90, CR90, CR90, etc...], the CR90's have to suffer one shot, and the rest can safely dance away. For the other situations, the idea is that under the current rules the big hitting black dice ships have to weather attacks between prime activations (i.e. MC30s in black dice range). Under your rules, they have to weather a single attack at most.

33 minutes ago, xanderf said:

I think you'd need to work out a larger list to highlight the problem patterns better (at which point you'll notice that they tend to go away)

As I worked out lists, I ran into something else: This ruling favors Command 3 ships in multiples. Let's take your example fleet [ISD, VSD, VSD, Gozanti] and put it against a swarm fleet [MC30, MC30, CR90, HH, HH, HH]. Clearly none of those Rebel ships are activation padding. Now lets look at activations:

• P1: VSD
• P2: HH, HH, HH
• P1: VSD
• P2: CR90, MC30
• P1: ISD
• P2: MC30
• P1: Gozanti

You can intermix the swarm ships however you like for those activations. So... why is this an issue? The advantage of having a swarm fleet is activation count and attack count. You reduce your overall damage on each attack (for the most part), but you go for "death by a thousand cuts". The disadvantage is that these low cost swarm ships have very little hull by comparison. An ISD with Gunnery Teams can easily pop 2 of those Command 1 ships. Same with a VSD, especially with Dcaps. In the early game you can force a lot of these weak ships to activate early and burn a lot of them down before they can do anything. Keep in mind that P1 gets first activation next round. This activation style makes it way to easy to force these swarm ships into range and evaporate 3-5 of them with next to no response.

I admit... All of these things I pose are situational. However, they are not unlikely match ups. This activation style skews things far too much.

58 minutes ago, xanderf said:

...sort of, sure.  It gives you some ability to move a 'multiple in a row' activation forward, but only activations of low-command ships vs the largest ships (a command-3 ship is going to trigger the activation switch no matter what)

Once the first Command 3 ship activates, the next player can activate 2-3 ships that are not necessarily activation padding. How about a Sloane(Dodonna) fleet with Goz(GR)+squads, Goz(GR)+squads, ISD(Yavaris)+squads? Or Sloane with Quasar+squads then ISD+squads? There's Yavaris+squads, AF+squads... CR90 + CR90 + Home 1... As the rules stand, you have to survive the entire round in order to get your multiple activations in a row. Under these rules, you can get them off early in a round in devastating ways.

In the end, I don't think changing such a fundamental portion of the game is reasonable. There are much simpler ways to fix activation padding without devaluing all Command 1 ships or setting up these types of early round combos.

##### Share on other sites

hmm. on second thought this looks kinda dangerous.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xanderf said:

Because bringing along 3x flotillas as nothing but activation padding is a valid tactic right now, and that's lame.  It looks silly on the table, it requires buying mostly-useless units just to pad a list, etc...all because it's currently trivially easy to exploit the current activation game mechanic.

3 x flotillas as nothing but activation padding is tame. Around here to be competitive you need 5 flotillas plus 1 combat ship.

Actually the flotillas are not 'nothing but padding' anyway. They are also relaying the 134 poimt ace ball!

##### Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ophion said:

3 x flotillas as nothing but activation padding is tame. Around here to be competitive you need 5 flotillas plus 1 combat ship.

Actually the flotillas are not 'nothing but padding' anyway. They are also relaying the 134 poimt ace ball!

If all those fleets are the same then thats even easier!

===================
Modified Pelta-class Assault Ship (56 + 39)
+ Mon Mothma (30)
+ Shields to Maximum! (6)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)
Modified Pelta-class Assault Ship (56 + 3)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)
Modified Pelta-class Assault Ship (56 + 3)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)
Modified Pelta-class Assault Ship (56 + 3)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)
Modified Pelta-class Assault Ship (56 + 3)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)

Thats a ton of AA and counter in a package designed to shut down squads, plus heal the low amount of damage they might be able to push through.

RELY on killing the foghters to win. Deploy peltas speed 1 next to each other in a line and foxus on whatever the single combat ship is thats comming your way.

Cause from what your saying you face something like:

134pts sqd

115pts flotilla

20-38pt commander.

That leaves 121pts for combat ships.

Thats a lightly upgraded large. A decent medium or 1-3 smalls.

Flying in formation the peltas are throwing 10red a turn, without CF or black dice.

Hate peltas? Dont have enough? Switch to Neb-Bs! 2 blue AA and no StM!

You dont need to change such a fundamental game mechanic to deal with certain fleets.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Astrodar said:

Once the first Command 3 ship activates, the next player can activate 2-3 ships that are not necessarily activation padding. How about a Sloane(Dodonna) fleet with Goz(GR)+squads, Goz(GR)+squads, ISD(Yavaris)+squads? Or Sloane with Quasar+squads then ISD+squads? There's Yavaris+squads, AF+squads... CR90 + CR90 + Home 1... As the rules stand, you have to survive the entire round in order to get your multiple activations in a row. Under these rules, you can get them off early in a round in devastating ways.

In the end, I don't think changing such a fundamental portion of the game is reasonable. There are much simpler ways to fix activation padding without devaluing all Command 1 ships or setting up these types of early round combos.

Not sure I'm following here - how are any of these ships having a problem 'surviving the whole round' when they are outside of weapons range?

That's the problem with the current system - your big 3-command ship is forced to move into their combat range without being able to hurt them (shoot -> move, after all), they all gang up on it and kill it, and then next turn when you might be able to take out some of them by activating before they can move...you can't, because you are dead.

By forcing the activations to be spread out over an entire turn, it guarantees that at least some of the low-command-rating ships have to move into weapon range of a 3-command the first turn anyone enters combat range, which allows it to mitigate the "advantage" of lower command ratings and higher numbers.

(And I don't disagree with you - I think the game design intent definitely intended those things to balance each other.  The lower-command-rating ships end up cheaper so you can take more of them, but do less damage, so are arguably 'balanced' against the higher-command, higher-priced ships that hit harder but react less well.  That is definitely what the intent was.  But it isn't quite working.  I mean...it was iffy with true MSU lists from the start, but those games I played back in the early waves didn't feel quite so lopsided.  Flotillas - especially the dirt-cheap Rebel flotillas that cost less than half the Imperial ace squadrons - COMPLETELY changed the picture.  Indeed, my first pass at this proposal didn't change anything in the activation sequence at all, except only requiring all flotillas on a side to always activate simultaneously, counting altogether as a single ship activation.  But tinkering with that, and then taking a step back and looking at what it was really doing, what made it work well and how that could be refined, led to the proposal in the OP.)

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xanderf said:

That's the problem with the current system - your big 3-command ship is forced to move into their combat range without being able to hurt them

I blieve this discussion about 'actication padding' is heavily subjective to personal experience, since without data to support any of this speculation, your word is as good as anyones. Moreover, isn't it beating a dead horse at this point? There have been so many discussions about this topic - why do we feel the need to revisit it so often?

We've already established that fleet building and fleet types are dependent on the 'local' meta. Which meta are you referring to in which 'activation padding' is an issue? Is it the Vassal community? The local meta of your region? the international meta?

: I apologise if my tone of writing came out as personal and aggressive - it was not the intention. I just want to frame this debate a bit better by having some context provided for why changing fundamental game mechanics would benefit the game for everyone and not just a local gaming group - because I seem to be under the impression that the post suggest that this aspect of the game is annoying to most of the players and not just some.

Edited by Hawkwing

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, xanderf said:

Because bringing along 3x flotillas as nothing but activation padding is a valid tactic right now, and that's lame.  It looks silly on the table, it requires buying mostly-useless units just to pad a list, etc...all because it's currently trivially easy to exploit the current activation game mechanic.

In wave 2, using raiders as activation padding to setup last/first with Demo was equally lame.

##### Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

I blieve this discussion about 'actication padding' is heavily subjective to personal experience, since without data to support any of this speculation, your word is as good as anyones. Moreover, isn't it beating a dead horse at this point? There have been so many discussions about this topic - why do we feel the need to revisit it so often?

Well, I mean...

...Q.E.D., right?

Even FFG - glacially slow (to the tune of being a year or more out of sync with the current meta) - recognizes a problem with low-activation, high-value/command ships being unable to capably deal with high-activation, low-value/command ships.

The suggestion, here, is a lot less substantial a change than some of them (IE., outright activation 'passes').  But even FFG seems to see that something is out of balance at the moment.  (And while Pryce is definitely interesting, I think it's a bit of a case of too little, and too late)

##### Share on other sites

This effectively swap command 1 ships for activation padding to command 3 ships for activation padding.

Winners: VSD and Whales.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

This effectively swap command 1 ships for activation padding to command 3 ships for activation padding.

Winners: VSD and Whales.

Not sure you are using the word 'padding' in the way that other people are.

Activating a VSD is one single activation that is at least (assuming the cheapest version, run naked) nearly 1/5 of your list. And nobody runs those, because that's a stupid amount to spend on a ship not doing anything.  For that price, you could get four GR75s.

Do you really see a single 'naked' VSD-I, operating with the proposal above, as 'padding' for a larger fleet of heavy hitters...being more disruptive than four GR75s being just 'padding' for an equally-large fleet of heavy hitters, as using the current rules?  I mean, if you do, then sure, your argument totally makes sense, but I think we'll have to 'agree to disagree' on that...

##### Share on other sites

Is a Pass Rule the same as Imperial Assault just to simple?

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, xanderf said:

Not sure I'm following here - how are any of these ships having a problem 'surviving the whole round' when they are outside of weapons range?

Clearly we are considering different parts of the game. It seems this activation rule you suggest is supposed to fix the first time someone is forced into range. The problem is that there are usually more rounds after that.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xanderf said:

Not sure you are using the word 'padding' in the way that other people are.

Activating a VSD is one single activation that is at least (assuming the cheapest version, run naked) nearly 1/5 of your list. And nobody runs those, because that's a stupid amount to spend on a ship not doing anything.  For that price, you could get four GR75s.

Do you really see a single 'naked' VSD-I, operating with the proposal above, as 'padding' for a larger fleet of heavy hitters...being more disruptive than four GR75s being just 'padding' for an equally-large fleet of heavy hitters, as using the current rules?  I mean, if you do, then sure, your argument totally makes sense, but I think we'll have to 'agree to disagree' on that...

I cannot play 4 GR75 instead of 1 VSD. It's not legal.

However with 80 points I have a ER+OE VSD that will make you put your heavy ship at range of my ISD or up to 3 CR90 under the same ISD GT fire.

So at the end I am using command 3 ships to get activation advantage. While now we are using command 1 ship to that purpose.

This change won't change the core mechanic. It just chance the tool used to get that advantage.

4 JJ VSD like I said will win the activation war against anything unable to put more than 12 command value on the table. 12 is not an easy number. 1 ISD/MC80 will need tons of other ships. Even double ISD/pickles will need a number I never see they could bring to the table. And MSU's? Where did you see 1 MSU with more than 10 total command value?

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

Is a Pass Rule the same as Imperial Assault just to simple?

Yes. Also boring. At least the actual pass rule means a ship on the table so you can entertain yourself moving it.

##### Share on other sites

This seems like it would be a big boon to squadron heavy lists against large ship lists. I can see situations where you would be down 3 commands and be able to activate 2 flotillas + a carrier in a row (for example, 2 Gozantis + Quasar or 2 GR75s + Yavaris). That's going to wipe out an opponent's squads pretty quickly.

Edited by jp82729

##### Share on other sites

Or we as a community could take some responsibility ourselves... acknowledge that activation padding is an issue and that flotillas kick that issue into overdrive because people who are willing to buy loads of these little cash cow ships are at an advantage.  We don't have to abuse a known game mechanic shortcoming (activation advantage which leads directly into the Last/First issue).   To those that use this, you may think you are a tactical genius, when in fact your greatest achievement is your willingness to buy stuff and your ability to count...

Everyone that I see playing this game is old enough and smart enough to see and understand this weak point in the game design so it is not that impressive if you choose to abuse it, your not smarter than everyone else, you just like the path of least resistance.  To me, a reasonable response to this is to never take more flotillas than actual ships...  If you pay for 3 actual ships and you can live with yourself, sure, take those 3 flotillas, but this crap about people taking 1 ship and a swarm of flotillas shows obvious intent to abuse the activation issue.

Nut up, and play with actual ships, so that your activation choices actually matter, rather than following a script of pushing the throw away activations until your opponent is tapped out and only then bothering to actually have to make a tactically meaningful decision, based on way more data than your opponent had access to.

Most people who follow Armada closely understand the mechanics that make the 1 & 4 or 2 &3 type builds so strong and it all comes down to activation superiority.  I for one, detest that the number of ships in your fleet, no matter how ineffectually armed, has such a great impact over the game compared to fleets that actually bother to spend points on combat ships (the whole point of the game btw, this is NOT X-Wing squadrons should play a role, but not determine whole battles).

We could wait on FFG, and hopefully Wave 7 has some more tricks and wrinkles that will help this issue, but never dismiss the fact that in order for a gameplay mechanic shortcoming to be an issue, there have to be players willing to take the "quick and easy path," that is " easier, more seductive."

For the sake of increasing the tactical depth of the game, and in the interest of making sure both players have to make equally difficult activation decisions, I implore the community to adopt the "never have more flotillas than actual ships," stance.  This measure is not without it's potential for abuse as well, (Que counter examples of people running ISD, 2 Raiders, and 3 Flotillas, or 4 TRC 90s and 4 Flotillas)  But it is a step in the right direction to mitigate what is really the only issue is an otherwise very well balanced and thought out game.

For the record, I would rather adopt a pass mechanic such that each fleet has even activation in every game.  I feel that this would completely resolve the activation issue, but in the interest of a quick code of honor to improve the game that even new players can easily be taught, I submit this idea of limiting yourself to never running more flotillas than ships.

(holds breath in anticipation of the flames from people who live and breath by the Last/First, lashing out to explain how they are actually super smart for "using the rules to their full advantage," which is to excuse themselves from mitigating the tactical depth that is possible in even activation Armada,  Yes, Mr. MC 80 and 5 Flotillas, you do in fact see something no one else sees, and should be rewarded for your insight into the major weakpoint of the game system by not having to make activation hard choices in your games)

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Or we as a community could take some responsibility ourselves... acknowledge that activation padding is an issue and that flotillas kick that issue into overdrive because people who are willing to buy loads of these little cash cow ships are at an advantage.  We don't have to abuse a known game mechanic shortcoming (activation advantage which leads directly into the Last/First issue).   To those that use this, you may think you are a tactical genius, when in fact your greatest achievement is your willingness to buy stuff and your ability to count...

Everyone that I see playing this game is old enough and smart enough to see and understand this weak point in the game design so it is not that impressive if you choose to abuse it, your not smarter than everyone else, you just like the path of least resistance.  To me, a reasonable response to this is to never take more flotillas than actual ships...  If you pay for 3 actual ships and you can live with yourself, sure, take those 3 flotillas, but this crap about people taking 1 ship and a swarm of flotillas shows obvious intent to abuse the activation issue.

Nut up, and play with actual ships, so that your activation choices actually matter, rather than following a script of pushing the throw away activations until your opponent is tapped out and only then bothering to actually have to make a tactically meaningful decision, based on way more data than your opponent had access to.

Most people who follow Armada closely understand the mechanics that make the 1 & 4 or 2 &3 type builds so strong and it all comes down to activation superiority.  I for one, detest that the number of ships in your fleet, no matter how ineffectually armed, has such a great impact over the game compared to fleets that actually bother to spend points on combat ships (the whole point of the game btw, this is NOT X-Wing squadrons should play a role, but not determine whole battles).

We could wait on FFG, and hopefully Wave 7 has some more tricks and wrinkles that will help this issue, but never dismiss the fact that in order for a gameplay mechanic shortcoming to be an issue, there have to be players willing to take the "quick and easy path," that is " easier, more seductive."

For the sake of increasing the tactical depth of the game, and in the interest of making sure both players have to make equally difficult activation decisions, I implore the community to adopt the "never have more flotillas than actual ships," stance.  This measure is not without it's potential for abuse as well, (Que counter examples of people running ISD, 2 Raiders, and 3 Flotillas, or 4 TRC 90s and 4 Flotillas)  But it is a step in the right direction to mitigate what is really the only issue is an otherwise very well balanced and thought out game.

For the record, I would rather adopt a pass mechanic such that each fleet has even activation in every game.  I feel that this would completely resolve the activation issue, but in the interest of a quick code of honor to improve the game that even new players can easily be taught, I submit this idea of limiting yourself to never running more flotillas than ships.

(holds breath in anticipation of the flames from people who live and breath by the Last/First, lashing out to explain how they are actually super smart for "using the rules to their full advantage," which is to excuse themselves from mitigating the tactical depth that is possible in even activation Armada,  Yes, Mr. MC 80 and 5 Flotillas, you do in fact see something no one else sees, and should be rewarded for your insight into the major weakpoint of the game system by not having to make activation hard choices in your games)

I prefer to play using the rules of the game.

There will always be stuff that plain better or easier to use, and people will find out what that is and use it.

That's part of the model for games like this.

Introducing self-imposed restrictions is a fallacy IMO.

##### Share on other sites

If I could redo Armada's rules, I'd steal from Rune Wars and use their cool dial initiative system.  But that isn't really feasible right now.

Imperial Assault's pass rule would minimize the need for flotillas.  Whoever had more activations would still get the last activation, but they couldn't get the last 2-3 (all with real ships).

##### Share on other sites

It does not bother you the disparity in the amount of meaningful decisions that need to be made between fleets when one side is out activated?

You don't think it is far easier to play with a swarm of meaningless activation than it is to actually take combat ships.

You want to see the game move more and more toward a state where there are fewer and fewer actual ships and more and more empty activations?

Using the easiest think is ... easy.  In a contest of wits, they are being allowed to perform better with less brainpower being required... that is pretty clearly unfair, as unfair as a contest of strength being set up but one competitor gets to use a lever to move their weight...  One person is not having to bear as much strain in order to achieve the same results as another... How many strong man competitions do you see that are set up this way?

Is there perhaps a reason they are not set up that way?

Gamers by nature take the path of least resistance...   The path of least resistance feels good at the moment, but does not often end up being best in the long run. I am calling on us to be better than that.  To take agency in the game we all love, and hold ourselves to a higher standard in order to raise the tactical depth of the game.  We do not want our game, billed as a fleet combat strategy game, to degenerate into a game that demands you spam flotillas and punishes the use of the large warships we all come to this game to use in the first place.  However, by choosing to run fleets with no concern for the implications on the meta, we are working our way toward this more and more every day.

Does anyone dispute that outactivating another fleet makes it easier to make better decisions than the opponent?  Am I the only one that is bothered by the presence of an easy mode that casts such a huge shadow over fleet construction?

Edited by Space_Cowboy17

## 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.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×

×

• #### Activity

×
• Create New...