Battlegroups or something like that

So, the scale of the game will be bigger than in the first game, there will be 13 fleets too.

This can give some possibilities and creation of the fleets, as mentioned in the title Battlegroups or allied detachments that we could include to our fleet.

I can think of 3 such inspiration from some TT games.

  1. The 8ed WH40K. There is a system of detachments there. If we compose our list using specific types of units we receive benefits, We can have a few detachments, not necessary all from the same army. We do not have to hold to those restrictions but we lose the benefits if we are not.
    It could be implemented in the game line a detachment of for example a 1 battleship, 0-2 battlecruiser, 1-3 cruisers and 2-4 light cruisers and if we do so we could have some benefits.

  2. DUST 1947. In this game, armies are divided by blocs and those are divided in fractions. Fractions do not work together but there is a Block of mercenary that can fight for anyone or by themselves. I do not remember it well but it is something like that: If our list includes 80% of units from one block then we can spend extra 10% points on a hero of this block but if our list includes 80% or so units from one fraction then we have another extra 10% points on heroes. So our 100 point list could be stretch into the 120%. It is an interesting option if there could be the option of taking allies to the fleet.

  3. Age of Sigmar Generals Handbook 2017. Here we have 2 systems here. We have 4 factions and there are divided into allegiance. We can have a list that includes units from any allegiance but if we decide to take an army of particulate allegiance, we can spend 20% of the points on allies of this allegiance (not all are allies, even in the same fraction, so we can't take a treeman to the army of dwarves) . Such allies are not part of our original allegiance so they do not benefit from allegiance special rules. Second thing are battalions that are part of our allegiance, battalions cost points and we must take certain units that this battalion includes, this gives those units some special rules that apply only to them.
    This is also some idea. It could work like that: We have a fleet of Imperial Navy and we can take some AdMech or SM ships. On top of that, we decided to pay some points for "battalion" that gives all ships in it extra AA guns or something like that.

I know that such things can easily complicate the game and make balancing it more difficult but we will have 13 fleets after all. Some of them are quite small and an option of including ships from other fleets could be interesting for them. I'm interested what is developers idea for those 13 fleets in multiplayer.

Could be fun. Personally, any option sounds fine to me.

Battlegroup Pros:

  • You have to plan out your fleets around restrictions.
  • Gives more utility to weaker ships.
  • Forces you to play around and customize a ship you may not have used.

Battlegroup Cons:

  • Losing certain ships for repairs could be utterly crippling.
  • You lose out on the option to customize your fleet exactly as you'd like.

Standard Pros:

  • You can adjust your fleet to specific desires.
  • Gives the progression system a linear path.
  • Gives more utility to the expensive ships.

Standard Cons:

  • Harder to balance around.
  • Makes it very easy to ignore certain ships.

why tho?
all this does is limit fleet diversity and force a meta
sounds like a horrible idea
why give a gimmick when you can just have a good game

@ashardalon said in Battlegroups or something like that:

why tho?
all this does is limit fleet diversity and force a meta
sounds like a horrible idea
why give a gimmick when you can just have a good game

Going by the 1st, Battlefleet Gothic actually had this (TT version). And in my opinion Armada needs it.

To take a Battlecruiser, you had to have a minimum of 2 Cruisers per Battlecruiser, a Battleship (Going off memory, files are on my PC) required 2 Battlecruisers.

Cruisers had no pre-requisite (as they're the basic fleet units) and Light Cruisers and Escorts had no such restrictions though Escorts had to be squadroned in groups of 3-5.

This doesn't limit fleet diversity. It enforces fleet Diversity. Otherwise you end up with people filling their fleets with the heaviest ships they can unless there is an overpowered gimmick at lower levels of ships (like fitting a fleet of Ork light Kroozas with Nova Cannons...)

@kadaeux
having a requirement for bigger ships is not something i would mind
tho it would actually limit fleet diversity, since you CAN'T make pure big ship fleets
should small ship combos be viable,yes and i think tau watercaste proved that they can, even without forcing it
but BFG1 had the problem that big fleets where hard to manage, its one reason why im not looking forward to 1500points, which made people prefer easier to play big ship fleets
i can take a retribution down easily with two dauntlesses and thats less then the 250pts a retri costs and even gives me twice as much IN escort reinforcements
its so much better!
but i dont usually take 4 dauntlesses and instead take a retribution because the micro it takes to get the most out of those dauntlesses is hell in a 700pts match
but that is just requiring a hq choice and two troops (basic 40k TT 4the dont know BF TT rules) and is not the same as the buff a full khorne army got to justify the limitations such an army would have
for example the watercaste
should they get an additional buff for only having watercaste? no because most buffs synergised with themselves, nobody takes a single nova ork ship and the nova swarm doesnt need a buff
this counts for almost every favor in the game
but buffing mixed favors would also be silly, why would your fleet be stronger with competing gods meddling in it?
it doesnt make sense
enforced diversity is NEVER good

then there is the suggestion that mixed fleets would work together, can you imagine how smooth a imperial navy commander giving orders to a marine fleet commander would go? a mechanicus captain?
the arguments would last longer then the battle itself
makes no sense

two would be the suggestion for mercenaries, again suggesting mixed fleets
who would the necrons hire
just a feature for imperials and tau?
there are no mercenary fleets in 40k to my knowledge
there are mercenary battalions sure, and they see some use, but fleets dont happen and for good reason
the rest of that suggestion is more, give me more points because i use 1 favor that synergises amazingly with itself
it wouldnt work

the age of sigmar example is even worse
sure in sigmars stupid world the dwarves have basicly burned their book or grudges and now can work alongside elves and ents
how likely does that sound in 40k?
its already heresy for dwarves that makes GW deserve to be kicked in the nuts for the next decade
it should definitely not be transferred into anything else
just because it sells models for a casual game doesnt make it a good mechanic
and thats all it does, sell models for a casual game
the other part of that suggestion is that some ships combination should give buffs to those ships
wich is the main limits options and forces meta part of my argument
fleets in 40k are the sum of its parts sure an emperor is a good part in a long range fleet but it doesnt buff the damage of macros or increase the wattage(?) of lances
its just a part doing what that part does and nothing more
fleets are exactly the sum of their parts and its the skill to get the most out of those parts
there is not a single ship (beyond the nids main synapse ship) that adds more to the fleet then what it just does
there are mechanicus ships that split into their components to fight as smaller ships but even for those there is no battery ship that transfers its energy into a nearby lance ship to increase the lances range or something silly like that
no fleet composition is going to make ships do more then what that fleet composition does
i dont mind the custodian giving a AA buff to nearby ships, but should two of the 206 cruisers and 1 207 cruiser (fuck tau names) suddenly give that same buff eventho none of those ships have those systems?
no, each ship can do whatever it can do no matter who its friends are

i hope this half rant clears up why i am against adding things like this that are little more then a gimmick to the game
it makes no sense in any logical way

except for the HQ and two troops (forgot how that requirement was called so im just going to keep naming it that until someone gives me the name) requirement
that one can be explained because bigger ship = higher in hierarchy so he is the boss for the battle so less arguments
big is best even in the imperium, at least for navy
that makes sense and i wouldnt mind as a requirement
but only within army because a marine cruiser will still ignore orders from a navy battleship no matter how big it is
tho it still would limit options and thus limit diversity
it would replace diversity with forced diversity which never works out well always ending up with the same hq and two troops because they have to

😕 now its 3/4th of a rant damnit

@ashardalon said in Battlegroups or something like that:

but that is just requiring a hq choice and two troops (basic 40k TT 4the dont know BF TT rules) and is not the same as the buff a full khorne army got to justify the limitations such an army would have

Now i'm on my PC.

The basic requirements, for most factions, was
3 Cruisers or Battle/Heavy Cruisers required for a Battleship or Grand Cruiser.
2 Cruisers required for a Battle/Heavy Cruiser

There are some that operate differently. Eg: The Necrons could have a Tomb Ship per Scythe Class Harvest ship.

Meanwhile, the Tyranid Hive Fleet (not Vanguard fleet) worked the opposite way. For every Hive Ship they could take up to 2 other Cruisers. And escorts were similarly restricted, a player could take between 6 and 12 escorts per capital. But the absolute core of the fleet was Hive Ships.

for example the watercaste
should they get an additional buff for only having watercaste? no because most buffs synergised with themselves, nobody takes a single nova ork ship and the nova swarm doesnt need a buff
this counts for almost every favor in the game
but buffing mixed favors would also be silly, why would your fleet be stronger with competing gods meddling in it?
it doesnt make sense
enforced diversity is NEVER good

No, BFG never did anything like that on TT.

then there is the suggestion that mixed fleets would work together, can you imagine how smooth a imperial navy commander giving orders to a marine fleet commander would go? a mechanicus captain?
the arguments would last longer then the battle itself
makes no sense

I don't have to imagine, we've seen a few mixed fleet battles in 40k. In all cases there is typically an assigned fleet Commander. Astartes for example fight with the Navy more often than in their own fleets. Smart Navy Commanders realise though that the Astartes knows where his ship is best utilised and leaves them a degree of autonomy.

If the Mechanicus is taking part at a fleet level then the enemy has screwed up badly. 😛

two would be the suggestion for mercenaries, again suggesting mixed fleets
who would the necrons hire
just a feature for imperials and tau?
there are no mercenary fleets in 40k to my knowledge
there are mercenary battalions sure, and they see some use, but fleets dont happen and for good reason

Uhm. They do happen. The Demiurg, Nicassar and Kroot have ships and are used as mercenaries. The Rogue Trader RPG has some other space-faring races that play mercenary, such as the Stryxis or the Rak'gol.

This is of course without mentioning that the Orks have been used as Mercenaries many a time. (with predictable results.)

the age of sigmar example is even worse
sure in sigmars stupid world the dwarves have basicly burned their book or grudges and now can work alongside elves and ents
how likely does that sound in 40k?

It happened. Tyranids ate them.

but only within army because a marine cruiser will still ignore orders from a navy battleship no matter how big it is

Depends on circumstances entirely. The books show numerous cases of Marine Strike Cruisers being made subordinate to the Navy Admiral running the combat. (They are however clear to show that said Admirals remain entirely respectful, and trend towards giving the Astartes free reign.)

squats getting eaten and dwarves shitting on the book of grudges and then burning it are very different things
one is killing a species the other is raping a factions history

and most navy commanders give astarted free reign because it would be bad for morale if the marines laugh at his face while he tries to give them orders
i also dont have to imagine that because there are several space wolf books where they do that

again, not against requiring some form of hierarchy requirement for big ships
tho also not following the lore, i have read more then one story where the fleet consisted of 2 battleships a cruiser and a swarm of escorts
and the nid rules make me think its very unlikely that it will be implemented
fleets will have 1 flagship and for nids that will be the hive ship that will also do the skills in mp
so either nids will be completely incapable of reaching the required 1500pts or people will have some freedom in how they build their fleet
and im really happy about that freedom

answering your answers randomly yay
the rules BFG never did on TT was a reply to the suggestion of giving fleets 8e like buffs for sticking to a flavor

kroot and demiurg are auxiliaries not mercenaries and they count as part of the tau fleet themselves
not as a seperate mercenary faction or can you point me to a book where the imperium hires demiurg
kroot have been hired on the ground as mercenaries by the imperium, or atleast humans, but they wernt fool enough to let a ball into their system unopposed
also can you imagine the balance nightmare of allowing ork support into a eldar fleet

edit: i hate this new forum form
@Kadaeux lets hope this now actually ats you

last edited by Ashardalon

@ashardalon said in Battlegroups or something like that:

squats getting eaten and dwarves shitting on the book of grudges and then burning it are very different things
one is killing a species the other is raping a factions history

Trust me, the reaction is very different. The destruction of the Squats is generally perceived as MUCH worse. (Of course, a strong element of that was literally giving their existing players the finger with a "you can't play anymore.")

and most navy commanders give astarted free reign because it would be bad for morale if the marines laugh at his face while he tries to give them orders
i also dont have to imagine that because there are several space wolf books where they do that

Space Wolves are very different. Most Astartes tend to listen to them, because while Astartes know where their ships are best placed, the Navy specialises in fleet engagements and generally has more experience.

again, not against requiring some form of hierarchy requirement for big ships
tho also not following the lore, i have read more then one story where the fleet consisted of 2 battleships a cruiser and a swarm of escorts

Yeah, but we're talking about the concept of applying the Tabletop structures to it. Lorewise ships tend to operate on their lonesome unless they're needed for specific tasks :p

and the nid rules make me think its very unlikely that it will be implemented
fleets will have 1 flagship and for nids that will be the hive ship that will also do the skills in mp
so either nids will be completely incapable of reaching the required 1500pts or people will have some freedom in how they build their fleet

I really don't understand your logic here. Where others have Capital ships required to let them take heavier ships, Tyranids have it vice versa, the Heavy ships are needed for them to deploy smaller ships? How is that unlikely?

answering your answers randomly yay
the rules BFG never did on TT was a reply to the suggestion of giving fleets 8e like buffs for sticking to a flavor

Oh agreed there. And I think it should stay out of it.

kroot and demiurg are auxiliaries not mercenaries and they count as part of the tau fleet themselves

Incorrect. They're explictly listed as "Allies, Subjects and Mercenaries".

"ALLIES, SUBJECTS & MERCENARIES
Tau fleets make frequent use of mercenaries.
These include subject races, commerce partners,
allies and other, less scrupulous individuals.
Your fleet may include mercenaries chosen from
the following, subject to the relevant
restrictions."

not as a seperate mercenary faction or can you point me to a book where the imperium hires demiurg
kroot have been hired on the ground as mercenaries by the imperium, or atleast humans, but they wernt fool enough to let a ball into their system unopposed

Once a supremely rare sight, the gigantic stately
commerce vessels of the Demiurg have been
seen with increasing regularity in the Ultima
Segmentum over recent centuries. Although
known in legend among many indigenous races
through the region, Demiurg vessels avoid
Imperium-claimed space scrupulously unless
specifically invited in. Unfortunately, less than
scrupulous planetary governors have been
known to employ Demiurg forces to bolster
their own positions, inviting Inquisitorial
censure for their truck with aliens.

  • Battlefleet Gothic Armada, Page 109

also can you imagine the balance nightmare of allowing ork support into a eldar fleet

Oh hells no. Only the Imperium seems to have had the balls to do it before. (well more specifically idiots of planetary governors have)

edit: i hate this new forum form
@Kadaeux lets hope this now actually ats you

It didn't send me a bell, but I check up moderately regularly.

Ok. I see that some people reacted quite negative on my ideas in the OP. I would like to explain that there are only ideas, not something that I want. I'm just thinking, there will be 13 fleets you know and how you imagine balancing them? The first game had/have a big problem with that and there was 4->6 fleet there, half the number of what we will have in BFGA2. On top of that such fleet as Dark Eldars has what? 2 ships, customizable all right but still. Such thing as I mentioned in my OP could diversify the game and open possibilities for such dark eldar. I'm just worried how this balance will look in this game with such quantity of different fleets.

@grey-seer said in Battlegroups or something like that:

Ok. I see that some people reacted quite negative on my ideas in the OP. I would like to explain that there are only ideas, not something that I want. I'm just thinking, there will be 13 fleets you know and how you imagine balancing them? The first game had/have a big problem with that and there was 4->6 fleet there, half the number of what we will have in BFGA2. On top of that such fleet as Dark Eldars has what? 2 ships, customizable all right but still. Such thing as I mentioned in my OP could diversify the game and open possibilities for such dark eldar. I'm just worried how this balance will look in this game with such quantity of different fleets.

Ultimately. I suspect we're going to lose most of the micro-heavy stuff, and quite possibly a great deal of the ship customisation (skills, refit/upgrades, favours etc) outside of a fleets Flagship in order to streamline balancing to working with fixed numbers and skills, instead of planning around whatever bizarre synergy of skills/favours players find to grossly tip the scales in their favour.

If that is the case, I personally hope the Upgrades (not skills) is at least kept. If not for multi or skirmish, but for single player.

@kadaeux said in Battlegroups or something like that:

Yeah, but we're talking about the concept of applying the Tabletop structures to it. Lorewise ships tend to operate on their lonesome unless they're needed for specific tasks :p

I really don't understand your logic here. Where others have Capital ships required to let them take heavier ships, Tyranids have it vice versa, the Heavy ships are needed for them to deploy smaller ships? How is that unlikely?

im mostly questioning the need of applying the TT rules
most TT rules are representations of the lore but some are there to balance
i dont think rules to balance TT should all be applied to this game because balancing the TT and a RTT is not the same thing
for example the dauntless example, on the TT dauntlesses where obviously weaker then BFG:A because why would anyone ever use the retribution in a turn based form if the dauntless is so much more powerfull
but it makes sense the dauntless is stronger in BFG:A to compensate for the micro requirement but that also makes it unnecessary to force smaller ships in because they are the more powerful ships in most situations
in my oppinion the game should stick as close as possible to the lore and not the TT tho i dont mind overlap

and about nids
nids will likely have 1 capital ship per fleet
maybe not in campaign but in MP there is some info to imply that this might be the case
and until they actually start comunicating i am forced to follow that info
considering nids need their big ships to be able to deploy more of their smaller that would limit tyranid fleet size because they wil be limited to only 1 of the biggest ships
according to the TT rules your stated nids max fleet size would be 1 hive ship and 2 cruisers
so nid fleets would be limited to escort spam and only escort spam
again, TT and RTT have different rules and merging them will not work everywhere
but i hope im wrong and the 1 hive ship limit is a misunderstanding
tho i still prefer it if i can choose how i compose my fleet as it will lead to more types of fleets to try and fight

@grey-seer said in Battlegroups or something like that:

Ok. I see that some people reacted quite negative on my ideas in the OP. I would like to explain that there are only ideas, not something that I want. I'm just thinking, there will be 13 fleets you know and how you imagine balancing them? The first game had/have a big problem with that and there was 4->6 fleet there, half the number of what we will have in BFGA2. On top of that such fleet as Dark Eldars has what? 2 ships, customizable all right but still. Such thing as I mentioned in my OP could diversify the game and open possibilities for such dark eldar. I'm just worried how this balance will look in this game with such quantity of different fleets.

i dont think it will be easier to balance the huge number of fleets by adding more things to balance
more additional rules means more things to consider when balancing
add to that is the arbitraryness of some of those buffs, in TT you can just dedicate a page to it but finding a way to squeeze it into game UI especially during a game
you might know all the weird buffs you suggest for your fleet but the enemy might not play that faction a lot so they need a option to see that mid game, making it a UI nightmare
not all TT rules can be easily applied
i think the main thing about balance will be the opposite
in 40k fleets are the sum of their parts, so if they can balance the parts correctly the fleet balance shouldnt give too much problems or atleast be possible
adding rules and complexity will not make it easier

i can understand your worries about dark eldar tho
tho people have noticed hints that they might be allowed to design some new dark eldar ships
dark eldar havnt fought a real big scale war in a long time, they only did raiding so considering the events the game is going to portray they might dust off some of their bigger stuff out of some old armory
there is possible lore justification for new dark eldar ships
but balancing eldar will always be hell, especially with necrons involved
but i dont think eldar will hire orks to do the balancing, and im glad of that

@ashardalon said in Battlegroups or something like that:

im mostly questioning the need of applying the TT rules
most TT rules are representations of the lore but some are there to balance
i dont think rules to balance TT should all be applied to this game because balancing the TT and a RTT is not the same thing
for example the dauntless example, on the TT dauntlesses where obviously weaker then BFG:A because why would anyone ever use the retribution in a turn based form if the dauntless is so much more powerfull
but it makes sense the dauntless is stronger in BFG:A to compensate for the micro requirement but that also makes it unnecessary to force smaller ships in because they are the more powerful ships in most situations
in my oppinion the game should stick as close as possible to the lore and not the TT tho i dont mind overlap

Actually even on the TT the Dauntless was a beast for a bargain. In my experience most Navy players had at least a pair that'd be fielded as a Squadron. But on TT, the rules covering crippling were much more severe, and a Dauntless didn't have a lot of hull points, so it was easy to cripple, the same could not be said for a Battleship.

and about nids
nids will likely have 1 capital ship per fleet
maybe not in campaign but in MP there is some info to imply that this might be the case
and until they actually start comunicating i am forced to follow that info
considering nids need their big ships to be able to deploy more of their smaller that would limit tyranid fleet size because they wil be limited to only 1 of the biggest ships
according to the TT rules your stated nids max fleet size would be 1 hive ship and 2 cruisers
so nid fleets would be limited to escort spam and only escort spam
again, TT and RTT have different rules and merging them will not work everywhere
but i hope im wrong and the 1 hive ship limit is a misunderstanding
tho i still prefer it if i can choose how i compose my fleet as it will lead to more types of fleets to try and fight

It is a misunderstanding. On tabletop, for most, you required X ships to get a Battleship, for Tyranids it was inverse, you needed a Hive Ship to take smaller, you could have multiple Hive Ships without a problem. Also, in Battlefleet Gothic, the term "Capital Ship" applies to any ships with multiple hull points. The Dauntless Light Cruiser was a Capital Ship, as was the Planet Killer.

@kadaeux
no i literally mean in the valrak video it was explained that nids would get 1 hive ship in their fleet
so following your numbers they could get max 2 cruisers
if you follow the tabletop rules alongside the rules they will try to implement to balance nids you would have a max of 3 capital ships in a nid fleet
for nids thats obviously not a good idea
the limit that you need a hive ship to get the option to take two cruisers would simply not work with that mechanic
they will try to attach relevance to the hive ship, making it the focus of the hive mind, but also making that the single weakpoint in the nid fleet
a target for the enemy to compensate for nids high numbers
forget the TT rules for a moment and realize that they will give nid fleets 1 hive ship per to count as its flagship and brain
then try to implement those TT rules to that
it simple doesnt work
making the hive ship a target for the enemy is a logical and interesting mechanic, so i dont mind them doing that, but you cant also add the TT rules to that

Personally I think using allies is a bad idea... While some fleets do work together (marine fleets helping IN beeing the easiest example) for this game it could get silly pretty damn fast.

Also some fleets had inherent flaws build into them. Like how Orks are amzing up close but terrible at range? yeaaaaaa.... If they had acces to allies they can just pick the strong ranged option there and have a fleet that rocks at all ranges. Sounds like a pleasure to balance 😂

@demoulius While firmly in the "fun trumps balance" camp, what you said is the biggest reason why I dislike the idea of allied fleets. Working around the fact that Orks are brutal at range changes how you play, it makes it fun to question how you're going to get in close (And ram them). But if I can pair the Orks and the Tau, I'm suddenly playing the Orks like I'd play any other race. It takes away their uniqueness.

I like the idea of bringing detachments into the game, it prevents some of the cheese at higher levels, and forces people to consider bringing a mix of different ships as opposed to just their large capital ships.

Particularly attractive for me since I loved running lots of CLs and CAs with IN favour with my Imperials, that would be a lot more viable if there were limits on the number of large ships they could bring in a formation.

last edited by CALiGeR_Reborn

Well allies COULD work but obviously only when done properly. Only a select few factions could ally to begin with and if they introduced it I think only the factions of the IoM would benefit really... Maybe chaos if they were also allowed to take a few IN ships to represent 'fresh' traitors but aside from that most of the other race combinations simply dont make any sense.

And that I think is the inherent problem here. You either break lore inmensely to allow people to min/max their fleets or you dont; But in doing so give everyone a level playing field. Allowing only a select few factions to ally would be a huge mistake and grossly unfair to the other factions.

@demoulius said in Battlegroups or something like that:

Well allies COULD work but obviously only when done properly. Only a select few factions could ally to begin with and if they introduced it I think only the factions of the IoM would benefit really... Maybe chaos if they were also allowed to take a few IN ships to represent 'fresh' traitors but aside from that most of the other race combinations simply dont make any sense.

And that I think is the inherent problem here. You either break lore inmensely to allow people to min/max their fleets or you dont; But in doing so give everyone a level playing field. Allowing only a select few factions to ally would be a huge mistake and grossly unfair to the other factions.

Plus factoring in that if your Necron, Dark Eldar or Tyranid, you're getting absolutely no friends.

Like I said, I'm not even a balance guy at all, and even I have to question what allied fleets would "add" to the game.

Dont forget the 'allies' can also be represented in team battles. I regulary played 2vs2 battles with a friend and rarely did we play the same fleets. So in a sense, we already have an ally system 😉

I just dont think allowing a single player to take allies is a good idea.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.