Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cubanboy

Happy Friday you Peeps

Recommended Posts

I would find a way to eliminate the weird interaction Ackbar has with Salvo and Quad Laser Turrets. Something along the lines of “these attacks do not originate from any hull zone.” I just don’t like Ackbar preventing you from countering. 

Share this post


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

Happy Friday everyone,

If you were going to change one mechanic in Armada what would it be?

 

3 hours ago, Cubanboy said:

I would get rid of Squadrons and allow capital ships them as Cards that do things.

I'd like to change squadrons. Not to get rid of them, but definitely get rid of bubbles. I'd loved the base to base idea. It requires an Armada Squadron 2.0 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sorry to jump on the squadron-hate bandwagon, but not a fan of the ways Squads can distort the deployment game... particularly the way squad-heavy fleets can plonk down a transport then wait to put down their heavy hitters late on to completely out-deploy a squad-less opponent. How about either -

A: Squads ALWAYS deploy after ships, or (for a far milder deterrent)...
B: If you still have ships remaining to deploy, you may only deploy an amount of squadrons equal to the squadron value of the ship they are placed within 2 of (with odd numbers rounded down/up depending on the vehemence of your hatred of squadrons ☺️).

Edited by Realadmiralsdoitinspace
Oops...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Realadmiralsdoitinspace said:

Sorry to jump on the squadron-hate bandwagon, but not a fan of the ways Squads can distort the deployment game... particularly the way squad-heavy fleets can plonk down a transport then wait to put down their heavy hitters late on to completely out-deploy a squad-less opponent. How about either -

A: Squads ALWAYS deploy after ships, or (for a far milder deterrent)...
B: If you still have ships remaining to deploy, you may only deploy an amount of squadrons equal to the squadron value of the ship they are placed within 2 of (with odd numbers rounded down/up depending on the vehemence of your hatred of squadrons ☺️).

I understand your point but those squad heavy list have their most firepower invested on those squadrons so they are commiting forces just as you do.

They benefit from squadron mobility, and from the fact that they may keep a lifeboat to avoid being tabled, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I understand your point but those squad heavy list have their most firepower invested on those squadrons so they are commiting forces just as you do.

They benefit from squadron mobility, and from the fact that they may keep a lifeboat to avoid being tabled, though.

Fair point, and taken - but that firepower represents a points investment that is going to be - at most - one third of the fleet point cost (obvs not including bid)...

I think my problem is that the (theoretical) deployment value per point spent can be - to my mind - far higher for squads. It's the frustration at seeing a tooled-up ISD (such as a BTVenger) being able to wait to last for an optimal deployment spot at the potential cost of a weak, yet still perfectly functional, screen of generics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Onager, or, more specifically, the Cataclysm title. The fact that you can (potentially) wipe a small ship off the table before the opposing player even has a chance to activate a single ship is insanity.

Thoughts- Remove the title. Biggest nerf, but solves the problem. Make a rules change so you cannot shoot into your opponents deployment zone with an onager on turn 1. Force us all to play blockade run as the only objective since it's impossible to hit across the 6 foot part of the table on turn 1. Make it so that obstacles work like dust clouds against the onager's long range ignition attacks. Make it so that you can start using the ability on turn 2 instead of turn 1 so you can't titus and do it. Anything to make it so that Cataclysm doesn't essentially remove the role of small ships from the game. The Onager/SSD are already doing a great job of that- it doesn't need another hammer to make it so that small ships are even more useless to take.

Between the SSD and the fact that it has huge reach due to its size, and the onager (with or without Cataclysm) hitting you from beyond a range you can even shoot back, it's an extremely tough time to be either a small or most medium ships since you can get destroyed before you can shoot back (Onager) or barely hit back and go kaboom (onager/ssd).

Can't wait for the new clone wars factions to arrive and meet the fury of the Onager- Oh look, my Republic Pelta goes speed 2 and... KABOOM DEAD. Here's my droid swarm fleet- I have 7 ships, but I'll lose 3 before I can even hit them.

The fact that triple onager fleets are a viable option because they can just wreck things from insane range is a problem, and it's a crappy time to run the rebels it feels like between the Onager and the SSD. Yes, this is only from observing others play online/the few games I played before the world shut down, but it was still a massive problem that, so far, the only answer appears to be "run it yourself" or "pray to the dice gods that they only roll blanks on their reds."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always disliked how, despite the fact Armada is fought in space it's treated as though it's a nautical game with all ships on one surface. things like overlapping should never be a thing (unless a player is trying to do it intentionally) because the ships can pass over/under each other because, you know, SPACE!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kenngp said:

I have always disliked how, despite the fact Armada is fought in space it's treated as though it's a nautical game with all ships on one surface. things like overlapping should never be a thing (unless a player is trying to do it intentionally) because the ships can pass over/under each other because, you know, SPACE!!!

 

I'm sure this came down to the actual physical complications of the game being played on a table and therefore relegated to a two-dimensional field. I wouldn't mind some form of elevation rule though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kenngp said:

I have always disliked how, despite the fact Armada is fought in space it's treated as though it's a nautical game with all ships on one surface. things like overlapping should never be a thing (unless a player is trying to do it intentionally) because the ships can pass over/under each other because, you know, SPACE!!!

 

You can fly through other ships. I've ever seen that in the sea.

Of course is not 3d but in game you have collision (that may happen in space) and flying through to represent flying above or below. I think they did an **** awesome job. But that's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, erikwm said:

The Onager, or, more specifically, the Cataclysm title. The fact that you can (potentially) wipe a small ship off the table before the opposing player even has a chance to activate a single ship is insanity.

Thoughts- Remove the title. Biggest nerf, but solves the problem. Make a rules change so you cannot shoot into your opponents deployment zone with an onager on turn 1. Force us all to play blockade run as the only objective since it's impossible to hit across the 6 foot part of the table on turn 1. Make it so that obstacles work like dust clouds against the onager's long range ignition attacks. Make it so that you can start using the ability on turn 2 instead of turn 1 so you can't titus and do it. Anything to make it so that Cataclysm doesn't essentially remove the role of small ships from the game. The Onager/SSD are already doing a great job of that- it doesn't need another hammer to make it so that small ships are even more useless to take.

Between the SSD and the fact that it has huge reach due to its size, and the onager (with or without Cataclysm) hitting you from beyond a range you can even shoot back, it's an extremely tough time to be either a small or most medium ships since you can get destroyed before you can shoot back (Onager) or barely hit back and go kaboom (onager/ssd).

Can't wait for the new clone wars factions to arrive and meet the fury of the Onager- Oh look, my Republic Pelta goes speed 2 and... KABOOM DEAD. Here's my droid swarm fleet- I have 7 ships, but I'll lose 3 before I can even hit them.

The fact that triple onager fleets are a viable option because they can just wreck things from insane range is a problem, and it's a crappy time to run the rebels it feels like between the Onager and the SSD. Yes, this is only from observing others play online/the few games I played before the world shut down, but it was still a massive problem that, so far, the only answer appears to be "run it yourself" or "pray to the dice gods that they only roll blanks on their reds."

 

 

I really like the Onager, and I have looked in to the 'turn 1 face smash' attack but it's not as devastating as you suggest, in my opinion.  Here's what's got to go right:

 

- You bring Onager Testbed, Ozzel, Cataclysm, Hondo and/or Tarkin.

- You have a bid for 1st player.

- Your opponent fails to spot what you are doing and naively shoves his small base ships as far forward as possible, putting them in range of your attack.

- Your opponent (who is player 2) fails to pick an objective to improve the survival odds of their small ships.

- Your attack roll of 5 red dice (assuming 4 red from Testbed + 1 from CF dial) provides you with two accuracies to disable both your target's evades (or evade and scatter), and at least 4 damage (to destroy a flotilla, because you won't generate enough damage to destroy anything else. 

This seems to me very unlikely.

 

To start with the red dice have only 1 accuracy side, and you need two, otherwise your target evades TWO dice, not one.  Then you need to get a double-hit and two more hits (or criticals).  The odds aren't great for double-accuracy.  Even with a reroll (from, say, Veteran gunners) your odds are very poor.  It's a lot to set up merely for the possibility of a 1st-turn kill on a small ship.

The Onager's actually quite poor at nailing smaller ships, and is much happier targetting medium and large bases.  Bring a MSU, bring some rogue squads if you want, get a cheeky bid for 2nd in and make it sad with horrible objectives.  Anything with dust clouds will do.  It's very beatable.

The Onager has some serious weaknesses.  That front arc is narrow.  Its shielding on the side isn't great.  It's tokens aren't great.  Its engineering isn't great.  It isn't like the Starhawks I keep facing with 6 defence tokens who chew their way through waves of bombers, all the while throwing giant handfuls of dice at anything dumb or brave enough to edge within medium range.  The Starhawk has only one weakness, and that's a lack of ECM option, and Thank the Maker it doesn't have that.  

 

TLDR - I disagree with your assessment of the Cataclysm Title. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Realadmiralsdoitinspace said:

Sorry to jump on the squadron-hate bandwagon, but not a fan of the ways Squads can distort the deployment game... particularly the way squad-heavy fleets can plonk down a transport then wait to put down their heavy hitters late on to completely out-deploy a squad-less opponent. How about either -

A: Squads ALWAYS deploy after ships, or (for a far milder deterrent)...
B: If you still have ships remaining to deploy, you may only deploy an amount of squadrons equal to the squadron value of the ship they are placed within 2 of (with odd numbers rounded down/up depending on the vehemence of your hatred of squadrons ☺️).

 

Maybe it could be worded so that you can only deploy X number of squads at distance 2 up to a ships Squadron Value. So sure, bring that flotilla and 10 squads, you're only going to get to place two squads down before you must place another ship. Then you'd have to ewait to place any remaining squads. 

Edited by eliteone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, flatpackhamster said:

I really like the Onager, and I have looked in to the 'turn 1 face smash' attack but it's not as devastating as you suggest, in my opinion.  Here's what's got to go right:

 

- You bring Onager Testbed, Ozzel, Cataclysm, Hondo and/or Tarkin.

- You have a bid for 1st player.

- Your opponent fails to spot what you are doing and naively shoves his small base ships as far forward as possible, putting them in range of your attack.

- Your opponent (who is player 2) fails to pick an objective to improve the survival odds of their small ships.

- Your attack roll of 5 red dice (assuming 4 red from Testbed + 1 from CF dial) provides you with two accuracies to disable both your target's evades (or evade and scatter), and at least 4 damage (to destroy a flotilla, because you won't generate enough damage to destroy anything else. 

This seems to me very unlikely.

To start with the red dice have only 1 accuracy side, and you need two, otherwise your target evades TWO dice, not one.  Then you need to get a double-hit and two more hits (or criticals).  The odds aren't great for double-accuracy.  Even with a reroll (from, say, Veteran gunners) your odds are very poor.  It's a lot to set up merely for the possibility of a 1st-turn kill on a small ship.

The Onager's actually quite poor at nailing smaller ships, and is much happier targetting medium and large bases.  Bring a MSU, bring some rogue squads if you want, get a cheeky bid for 2nd in and make it sad with horrible objectives.  Anything with dust clouds will do.  It's very beatable.

The Onager has some serious weaknesses.  That front arc is narrow.  Its shielding on the side isn't great.  It's tokens aren't great.  Its engineering isn't great.  It isn't like the Starhawks I keep facing with 6 defence tokens who chew their way through waves of bombers, all the while throwing giant handfuls of dice at anything dumb or brave enough to edge within medium range.  The Starhawk has only one weakness, and that's a lack of ECM option, and Thank the Maker it doesn't have that. 

TLDR - I disagree with your assessment of the Cataclysm Title. 

Romodi on an OSD. Sensor Team guarantees one accuracy, Quad Turrets add a 2nd to counteract the possible loss of a die triggering the Sensor Team. Weapons Battery Techs can then turn a spare accuracy to a crit. With a CF dial, it can get up to 6 red dice, with 2 accuracies.

However, I agree with you: Cataclysm on turn 1 is mostly a noob trap.

Triple Onagers is very swingy too: wins 400-0 vs some fleets; loses badly to anything with bombers.

Despite @erikwm's opinion that Onagers kill MSU, in my experience MSU works fine against them - or, at least, it works as well as it does against most fleets, whereas Starhawks murder them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cubanboy said:

Happy Friday everyone,

If you were going to change one mechanic in Armada what would it be?

Happy Friday. 🙂

 

14 hours ago, Cubanboy said:

I would get rid of Squadrons and allow capital ships them as Cards that do things.

But without any squadrons in the game, who's to perform trench runs and ram SSD bridges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My proposal for a change:

Squadrons should be allowed to shoot AND move (up to range 1) in the Squadrons Phase... perhaps even in any order.

As a old X-Wing and TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance and Star Wars Rebellion PC gamer, it's just so counter-intuitive that any one squadrons pilot would have to be told to move and shoot and wouldn't be able to do so on their own.

I picked up the game when it came out and this has always been my one gripe.

The current rule is fine for droid fighters, alright, but not for anyone else.

 

That being said, I agree with all y'all that squadron interactions have become pretty convoluted and overly powerful and time consuming.

Share this post


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

Romodi on an OSD. Sensor Team guarantees one accuracy, Quad Turrets add a 2nd to counteract the possible loss of a die triggering the Sensor Team. Weapons Battery Techs can then turn a spare accuracy to a crit. With a CF dial, it can get up to 6 red dice, with 2 accuracies.

However, I agree with you: Cataclysm on turn 1 is mostly a noob trap.

Triple Onagers is very swingy too: wins 400-0 vs some fleets; loses badly to anything with bombers.

Despite @erikwm's opinion that Onagers kill MSU, in my experience MSU works fine against them - or, at least, it works as well as it does against most fleets, whereas Starhawks murder them.

I haven't yet run the OSD because the huge cost premium over the Testbed has put me off.  With the setup you describe it's an extra 25 points (a whe Gozanti or a pair of TIE Interceptors)  over the Testbed.  Trying it next game though, with Screed.

 

Best case scenario then would be 8 damage with 2 accuracies - which would destroy a CR90. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

 

I'd like to change squadrons. Not to get rid of them, but definitely get rid of bubbles. I'd loved the base to base idea. It requires an Armada Squadron 2.0 though.

Agreed. I enjoy playing with squadrons sometimes (although I like to go squadless a lot), but I think the base to base idea would clean up the "Is my squadron in range of Jan/Dengar/Jendon/Howlrunner/Hera/Norra" mess that often prolongs games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main weird issues is squadrons just have far too much ease of travel. It would be better with more restrictions. Ex in a front arc. Even ignoring asteroids and debris is plain silly. Should be penalized with 1 damage. 
furthermore squadrons should have been incentivized to spread out and do more nimble tasks  instead it’s blunt force trauma with who can blow up something the fastest with the most force applied in a single area  

 

Share this post


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

One of the main weird issues is squadrons just have far too much ease of travel. It would be better with more restrictions. Ex in a front arc. Even ignoring asteroids and debris is plain silly. Should be penalized with 1 damage. 
furthermore squadrons should have been incentivized to spread out and do more nimble tasks  instead it’s blunt force trauma with who can blow up something the fastest with the most force applied in a single area  

 

What about a die roll for damage? It would add a risk to hide on an astroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

One of the main weird issues is squadrons just have far too much ease of travel. It would be better with more restrictions. Ex in a front arc. Even ignoring asteroids and debris is plain silly. Should be penalized with 1 damage. 
furthermore squadrons should have been incentivized to spread out and do more nimble tasks  instead it’s blunt force trauma with who can blow up something the fastest with the most force applied in a single area  

 

That was ever thus.  Getting there 'the fastest with the mostest' was what mattered in war.

I think that the squadron bunching issue could probably be solved with objectives. 

 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...