Squadrons and Centauri

[Delthos]

I ask because individually a Vorchan, and even other Centauri ships, I find is at the top end of what is acceptable at its priority level. When fielding Vorchans together in a squadron, even with only two of them, I've found they are better than even some Battle level ships. Squadroning them amplifies their firepower too much. My Centauri playing friend even feels they are too strong in squadrons, of course that doesn't stop him from using them!

While I like the idea of squadrons, I think perhaps the squadron rules need changing. I think a good change would be to have squadrons activate at the same time during the movement phase only, and not in the firing phase. In this way they do not get to devastate a higher level ship before it gets a chance to fire. I realize this is the biggest reason for squadroning, but I just don't like it. I don't have a problem if a ship is devastated by another high level ship. Maybe they should be able to fire at the same time during an activation, but only if first passing a command check, otherwise they would have to fire on separate activations.

This may make squadrons of much less use, but I really think squadrons throw the game out of balance anyway. Squadrons just amplify the problem of multiple small ships being much better than a few larger ships.

So is there a problem? Do squadrons need changing? Are some ships just not balanced correctly? Speak up.

 

[Omnipotent]

Well as you said yourself the main reason to make squadrons or pentagons is the simultanious shooting...without it the idea of moving your ships together but shooting individualy would only be stupid(ini sinks etc).

I did not vote cause I really do not know what to think about squads. I do think that squads or pentagons are too strong. It depens so much on whom you play against. For instence I would not field squads(maybe one squad with two Elutarians) against Vree, playing as Centauri. I would want to have my ships spread out to atleast try to cover as much as possible with my poor Centauri ships against Vree (in a sidenote, I played a 5 point raid against Vree and I got a skrimish ship cribble before I gave up). Forward arc against SM movement with some stellar depree .

Still I do agree that some squads are too strong, Demos with a maximus or Targraths in a pentagon together with an Ochlavita are good examples. It is kinda wierd that u can shoot down an Omega if it does not close blast doors on turn one or two with a pentagon of 4 raid and a skirmish ship from range 24. As u usually win initiative with Dilgar against EA the EA player is bound to loose atleast a raid lvl ship on turn one.

This said, I would definetely not remove the hole rule of squads or pentagons, maybe nerf the maximum ship amount in each by one. The pentagons I feel is a race specific thing for the Dilgars (in fact I found that the pentagons are the ONLY reason to ever use the Ochlavita) and would be very sad to see it changed. In a way it tends to be a two way think, especially as i.e. EA needs less ini sinks and can field "worth while" ships. But on the other hand they might loose a big ship before firing a shot.

 

[Centauri_Admiral]

Squadrons have their own inherant benefits obviously; but also weaknesses that need the opponent to exploit. For instance: From firepower purposes, most people accept this as the main benefit of squadron formations, but while I have grouped say 3 ships into a squadron, that also means I am restricting myself in terms of having a certain number of eggs in one basket. If that squadrons weaponry works well, I'm likely to destroy my intended target, if I don't then I've used 3 of my ships and effectively done nothing, you on the other hand still have ships to use.

Its one of those rules that when I travel about to tournaments at MGP HQ I'm surprised not to see people using more often. And I'm sorry but I think the rules are fine as they are, the emphasis should be on the opponent to develop a combat against the squadron, not squadrons completely re-written just because some people come on the recieving end and don't like it.

Using vorchans/demos and some other centauri ships as examples, is a whole different ball game, plenty of people think the vorchan/demos needs to be changed. Everyone has their opinion, everyone is entitled to it, maybe you could try a house rule, and re-write the squadron rules and play so games, let us know how you found the changes, does it work better for you? Then others can have a try as well; and see what they think. As for offically getting MGP to change it; can't see it happening personally.

 

[Delthos]

Squadrons have their own inherant benefits obviously; but also weaknesses that need the opponent to exploit. For instance: From firepower purposes, most people accept this as the main benefit of squadron formations, but while I have grouped say 3 ships into a squadron, that also means I am restricting myself in terms of having a certain number of eggs in one basket. If that squadrons weaponry works well, I'm likely to destroy my intended target, if I don't then I've used 3 of my ships and effectively done nothing, you on the other hand still have ships to use.

That isn't a weakness of squadrons. If those three ships in the squadron fired on separate activations and did nothing, you'd still be in the same situation as if they fired as a squadron and did nothing. So that isn't a squadron weakness. That just sucks. What is a weakness is limiting your number of activations by putting ships in squadrons, although with skirmish level ships it's not that much of a problem to put some in squadrons, and still keep your activations up. Most people will also keep them quite close, probably closer than the 6" minimum, making them vulnerable to catastrophic explosions. In my opinion the benefits of a squadron are much greater than the drawbacks though.

I see you are a Centauri player, and I don't intend to come across as attacking the Centauri. I only used them as an example as it's really noticeable with the Vorchan. It's a problem with any ship with high numbers of AD.

Believe me this isn't a dislike of the rule because I've come out on the bad end of it. I've been on the receiving end of it, and I've used it to my advantage. It's purely because four skirmish ships in squadron, can easily take out a ship 2 levels higher and still have firepower left over to use against other ships. That in my mind is a problem. Is it because the ships aren't properly balanced or is it because the squadron rules don't have enough drawbacks? That's what I'm trying to find out with the discussion.

I'm looking for constructive feedback, not a dismissal of the issue.

 

[Frankvas]

I too think squadrons are too powerful. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix them. They really have no draw backs. The fact that you loose a couple of cheap initiative sinks isn't enough of a detractor to use them.

I think the bigger problem is that multiple lower priority ships can always out gun and out last a higher priority ship. To fix that you have to redo the ships or add extra armor rules to higher priority ships, as others have suggested in previous topics.

Frank V.

 

[Taran]

I too think squadrons are too powerful. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix them. They really have no draw backs. The fact that you loose a couple of cheap initiative sinks isn't enough of a detractor to use them.

I think the bigger problem is that multiple lower priority ships can always out gun and out last a higher priority ship. To fix that you have to redo the ships or add extra armor rules to higher priority ships, as others have suggested in previous topics.

Frank V.

I would say that that really depends on the fleet. It's an important tradeoff (init sinks vs simultaneous fire) for an ISA fleet to consider...

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Squadrons too powerful? This is a joke, right?

You forgo init sinks in order to concentrate firepower - it's a meta-game rule built into the (as far as I'm concerned seriously flawed) you-go-I-go turn sequence. It's no more or less powerful than the ships using it and the luck of the dice.

 

[darklord4]

I'll keep running my Vorchans and Demos in squadrons. Especially while the wildcard beams still exist.

 

[Hans Olo]

Squadrons too powerful? This is a joke, right?

You forgo init sinks in order to concentrate firepower - it's a meta-game rule built into the (as far as I'm concerned seriously flawed) you-go-I-go turn sequence. It's no more or less powerful than the ships using it and the luck of the dice.

As long as you got a forward arc you have no serious problems with ini sinks. For fleets with boreside squadrons are no option. Just another drawback of boreside races.
The ability to fire 3 or 4 ships at once is a huge advantage especially if we assume that one or two of these ships could have been destroyed before they where able to fire.
While squadrons are to power full used by certain races they are next to useless for other fleets, and therefore not balanced at all.

 

[inq101]

The advantages of squadrons are more than countered by their disadvantages. You loose ini sinks. They're vulnerable to e-mines, ship explosions and jump-bombing. You loose a lot of tactical flexibility. Centauri have the best of it because they don't need as many I sinks (no boresites).

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Achieving boresights is only one aspect of init sinks. Denying the enemy their boresights is another huge aspect of the whole concept. They allow you to control the game to a degree you simply can't do without. Squadroning units is always a risk for this reason.

 

[Centauri_Admiral]

I still go by my early statement, but to a large extent I agree with dave, the trouble I would imagine with re-designing rules is that while solving one problem, it will generate another. Whilst constructive discussion would be nice, I feel its the kind of topic that isn't going to get any, purely because its a marmite issue. You either love squadron rules or hate them.

I wouldn't have the first clue what to change if I was going to, as it happens I think the rules are fine, so its difficult for me to offer something constructive OTHER than to say play test some rules and post up with how things work out.

Otherwise the issue should be dismissed, whats the point of posting this up if no one is going to offer a solution, and personally I'd consider trying out a house rule first before posting.

Oh and I'm not just a Centauri player - ISA, Crusade EA, Minbari, Vorlons, Psi-Corps and Drakh as well.

 

[Burger]

The poll is biased. There is no "its all fine" option.

 

[noobdelux]

agreed

 

[Ministalker]

Talking about squadrons, I don't know if they are too strong or not but let me tell you what happened in my last game:

I just fought against a Vree fleet in a 4 Battle FAP. There was in it squadron of 3 Vree Xonn Saucers kept in hyperspace.

They came out of the hyperspace and destroyed in one raw a Balvarin, a Altarian and a Secundus that were all brand new.

For reminder, they just shooted 82AD in DD (36 DD/SAP and 48 DD/TL).

What about your experiences: what is the more effective combination you ever played against / with?

 

[Ripple]

I disagree on the poll being biased, the No Making ships more powerful is the whole point covers that aspect.

Squadrons are tough. We had a problem fleet at a local tourney that turned a number of people off the game. 5 Battle fleet with ten hermes, 3 olympus (squad), 2 oracle and 5 hyperion squadroned. The issue was the just too much of the fleet moved last and fired first. And that was under the last edition without the 2 for 1 specials that allow even move concentration in the late move early fire modes.

Folks say that you give something up to have a squadron, that's rubbish. If you couldn't break a squadron the moment you needed sinks that might be true, but it isn't. Effectively squadroning allows swarm fleets to have all the concentration of a big ship fleet and then reclaim their sink advantage at any moment.

Not advocating a change at this time, just saying that it is part of what I've seen drive people out of the game. Too many times fielding an iconic big ship that never gets to fire in anger even once. Not so bad when its a smaller ships, but when you lose your largest ship first cause of the other guys swarm has grown a big ship in effect.

Ripple

 

[Greybeard]

Maybe saying that one ship in a squadron requires a commander at an equivalent FAP to allow a squadron to be formed would help. So if you want to squadron 4 raid ships you must allot one raid point to a squadron commander.

T|O ofset the point requirement give the squadron commander som additional skill al la an admiral

 

[CZuschlag]

Making the breaking of a squadron require moving out of squadron cohesion limitations would do it, too, Ripple. That was the way we used to play, and getting your sink back by throwing a combat ship completely out of formation was a pain, even for the 1st Ed. Dilgar.

To the original poster, keep in mind .... I think the Vorchan itself is broken, and the Demos is absolutely BUSTED. That's me. If you are facing squadroned stacks of either, I recommend refusing to play, or switching to a Gaim fleet of photocopied counters. Why waste your time?

 

[noobdelux]

this might get out wrong considering im a bit slow 00:00 atm... but if those ships are so durn good.. why am i still loosing : P

as i said in another type of game.. one mans ... is another mans gold...

its just how you use it

 

[Centauri_Admiral]

I don't know why we don't all throw our rule books in the bin; make a load of green crayon rules and play our little provincial versions of ACTA. It would stop all the non-stop constant bloody whining. Try using tactics to beat squadrons; generally I find that trying to play a tactical game using tactics is a good idea and normally helps.

p.s - that was directed at no one in particular; you can all be offended if you like.