This thread derives from the earlier thread I started, titled Different Ideas of Fun. It builds off what Lagomorphia is calling a A "design a new format thread".

The basic idea is this:

X-Wing models a tactical level of war - "The tactical level of war is concerned with the planning and conduct of battle and is characterised by the application of concentrated force and offensive action to gain objectives" ( source ). However, we might also be interested in the Operational and Strategic levels of war as dimensions to add stakes to our tactical-level games. I'm interested in how to accomplish that, without undermining the fun of this game.

In the other thread, LunaticPathos suggested making the maps a variable (are there asteroids, or other physical features or not), as well as specific missions in specific locations. Also, make characters unique. He uses the idea that Soontir is one person in the overall force, and when he's dead - he's dead.

While I've got some ideas, I think it's more important that the discussion gets started, rather than that I write a TL;DR original posting.

There's DagobahDave's Galactic Conquest, where people's games across the world link up into a wider galactic conflict.

There's DagobahDave's Galactic Conquest, where people's games across the world link up into a wider galactic conflict.

Indeed there is. I've been posting to that thread enthusiastically. I like how it's a platform in which you can write stories to embellish the games. I've been doing so as an after-the-fact battle report in the form of an Empire propaganda release.

My galactic campaign really doesn't do what Mikael's talking about. I set up my campaign so that it would have virtually no influence on individual battles or scenario conditions.

I've seen a couple of campaign designs on BoardGameGeek that operate as a series of linked missions, with unique pilots that suffer permanent death, resource management and so on.

How do you handle production? You don't want to have a setup where one side has 200 pts and another 50 because that that wouldn't be a fun matchup. For a good strategic overframework, we still need a way to keep the tactical game balanced.

I suppose instead of producing ships, planets could produce ship classes. You have a world manufacturing TIE interceptors and that allows you to use the TIE interceptor in your squadrons. Having fewer production centres increases your predictability: if your last world only makes TIE fighters, then your opponent knows they're facing a TIE swarm. This does create a component limitation issue though, what if your only world left makes Z-95s? A way around that is to have worlds produce upgrades rather than ships.

You could also ensure balance by having 100pt squadrons as fleets that fly around your "galaxy map". Have each fleet only able to fight one fleet at a time and you have a strategic level that produces 100pt games. Your production element then allows you to alter those fleets by replacing lost ships and equipping upgrades you've made.

How do you handle production? You don't want to have a setup where one side has 200 pts and another 50 because that that wouldn't be a fun matchup. For a good strategic overframework, we still need a way to keep the tactical game balanced.

This is absolutely true, and I think it's the main challenge of introducing multi-level play to this single-level game. That's why this can't be a true way to simulate what war in the SWU is like.

However, I do think slighlty unbalancing the tactical game is perfectly fine, so that there might be a slight variation in the number of points (e.g. 100 vs. 80), but nothing of the order of 4x that you mention. Also, I think there are other variables to introduce, such as those that LunaticPathos mentioned in the other thread.

Here's what he wrote:

Ok, you're right about strategy often making the tactical game less fun. It's definitely a challenge when developing campaigns.

I think, because of that, individual matches should still be points balanced, though there may be map elements that have a points value for one side or the other.

The strategy, then, may be about what to deploy in what match. Map campaign, each team (rebels vs imps) gets 1000 points, treated as a single fleet (in regards to unique cards, excepting squad leader). Then, in deploying to the campaign map, the fleet must be divided amongst the players on a team, though trading is fine when fleets are in the same zone. Now, when you meet an enemy fleet, you play the mission for that zone, including points limits, but the squad for the match must be built from what is available in your fleet. Ships that survive or flee a match rejoin their fleet and repair/rearm. If a fleet is reduced below the points requirements for a zone, it cannot invade that zone until it reinforces from another fleet. In this way, it may be worth it to lose a battle or zone in order to finally kill Soontir, so that next time your opponent no longer has him available. It may be worth fleeing to preserve your force and attack a different zone. Provide zones with some sort of benefit, or make a map victory condition. Win through map condition or through attrition (event total fleet strength below 100 points)

Make some zone missions clearly favor certain ship types, so asset denial or lures become a thing. This isn't strictly narrative, just another layer of game, but it does provide stakes, ability to design more mission based play, and possibly emergent narrative. (Aw man, i can't believe Han died in the second battle for Bespin, but he managed to blow up the Imps Tibanna reserves, making their zone worthless)

I really find these rules adapted by Rekkon to be excellent ground work for what I think you're talking about.

http://teamcovenant.com/rekkon/2014/03/12/galactic-civil-war-campaign-rules-3-0/

I cannot get enough of HNN! It's brilliant!

I do like the idea of having a mini-campaign around "carrier" warfare, and the battle to "control many little islands".

--

Concept: Rebel capital ship vs Imperial capital ship, and the campaign revolves around that notion.

It would be small scale, with the Imperials starting off in control of the 1-3 habitial planets in the sector, and the rebels having a secret base station in a nebula or asteroid belt (or inside of a big asteroid/planetesimal).

The battles would first start off as rebel raids against weak imperial targets like other asteroid installations and deep space listening posts, then escalate to clashes over supply depots. Then the Imperial player commits the star destroyer in the search for the secret rebel base, and then the campaign really kicks off.

When the two cruisers spot each other, they would scramble close fighter defense, and strike groups. Strike groups would be bomber heavy, with escorts to engage the close fighter defenses, screening the bombers for their attack runs.

Bombers would try to disable components like turbolaser batteries, ion cannon batteries, laser cannon batteries, concussion missile launchers, point defense systems, and sensor arrays, with hardened targets being shield generators, bridges, hanger bays, and reactors. The hardened targets would be very difficult for fighters and bombers to kill, but taking out one of them would cripple the capital ship and wrap up the campaign.

--

Campaign wise, you would have a battle when both strike forces meet each other in-between the capital ships, with the goal of intercepting their bombers and getting yours to the other side without losing any. (thinking of a 4x3 or 6x3 board where you deploy on the opposite edges and need to run the gauntlet and get off the other board edge)

Then two other battles where the strike force has reached the other ship and the remaining escort must keep the defending fighters busy until the bombers can make there run (against some paper cutouts at the board edge would represent the side of a capital ship fairly well). Then, once the ordnance is depleted, you turn and run for home. Then, after that is done, the players switch sides, and play the mission again, where you are now defending your capital ship against the enemies strike force.

If one player manages to cripple X weapon batteries or some other vital system, the capital ship will pursue and engage the wounded beast and finish her off, ending the campaign!

If the battles are indecisive, the ships disengage to lick their wounds, restock on spacecraft, (maybe a raid or two is played to simulate time passing) and then they go at it again, but this time with more numbers (escalate the engagements).

--

That is just a rough outline, critiques?

The problem with LunaticPathos's 1000pt approach is component limitations. You can't just run what you have unless you have 1000 pts of ships, and if you're ever put in the position of being forced to run a part of your list that componentwise you can't... what do you do?

I really find these rules adapted by Rekkon to be excellent ground work for what I think you're talking about.

http://teamcovenant.com/rekkon/2014/03/12/galactic-civil-war-campaign-rules-3-0/

Thanks for sharing that. I'm going to give it a thorough study.

Concept: Rebel capital ship vs Imperial capital ship, and the campaign revolves around that notion.

It would be small scale, with the Imperials starting off in control of the 1-3 habitial planets in the sector, and the rebels having a secret base station in a nebula or asteroid belt (or inside of a big asteroid/planetesimal).

[etc]

That is just a rough outline, critiques?

This is also roughly what I've been thinking about, with some hints of where Rekkon's has gone in the document that JCDisaray linked to, cited below.

I really find these rules adapted by Rekkon to be excellent ground work for what I think you're talking about.

http://teamcovenant.com/rekkon/2014/03/12/galactic-civil-war-campaign-rules-3-0/

So, in other words, other people have clearly been thinking along similar lines already, and I'm not just a voice in the wilderness. Excellent!

Now, what is the implementability of this into an actual game? Has anyone played something like this. Clearly, DagobahDave's doing something of this nature, in a very open and inclusive way - allowing anybody to play the type of game of their choice and sending him the results of it. This set-up would be far more restrictive. Rekkon's system suggests just a couple of players.

I have tried to develop my own 3 to 4 mission campaign that had alternate pathing. I employed 9 of my friends to help me with this test and found out some very hard lessons.

The problems I had were:

1) Trying to throw too many ships on the board. (Point Limits were outrageous)

2) Too Large of a Play Area (6x3) (I.E. container collection missions were hard to complete in a reasonable amount of turns)

3) Too Many People involved in one mission (Had all of us--10 people--involved in one mission)

4) Mechanics Problems (I.E. how to deal with reinforcements, placement of attackers and defenders, etc...)

5) All the Above created for Slow, Confusing, and somewhat Boring Game Play sadly in the End

What I was going to try to do in order minimize the above problems was reduce the size of the play area, incorporate strict mission point limits, break down the group into smaller more manageable teams, and run Concurrent Missions.

I.E. Smaller Manageable Teams--so lets say you have 8 players. Split them up between Rebels and Imperials obviously...so 4 v 4, but then break up each group into smaller teams: 2 people per team (turns each mission into a 2 v 2). Then you have 2 Missions running Simultaneously either 1) in the same location just different 3' x 3' areas or 2) have them on opposite sides of the galaxy. These Missions though separate and with different objectives would feed into the overall goal of the Campaign. This will alleviate some of the long waiting people will have to endure during phases, the mass confusion of who is next and who got skipped, faster pace story progression, and greater involvement from participating members.

Had I had Rekkon's Guide earlier things would have worked out much better specifically when it comes to Campaign Mechanics. I am trying to put something together in a couple of months for my friends again so I'm avidly excited about helping develop a better system for Multi-Level-Team-Based-Campaign-Play.

I believe Rekkon's Guide actually talks about expanding your Numbers per Faction. I'll have to re-read for exact location but I believe he brings it up when talking about 300 Fleet Points per Person. There's also a part in there where he addresses mismatched team numbers and how to divvy up mission completed points.

I'll re-read it and get a better grasp on it.

I have tried to develop my own 3 to 4 mission campaign that had alternate pathing. I employed 9 of my friends to help me with this test and found out some very hard lessons.

Yes, one of the main problems with trying to simulate something at a higher level is that the scale gets overwhelming. Also, the point is to make a fun game, and that means not robbing the fun aspects of the game we have. That is certainly not lost on me. This is something that DagobahDave seems to have done well, by offering minimal structure. However, I sense that there's a thirst for greater structure in order to have a greater sense of a dynamic war.

I wonder if it would not be interesting to make this game flourish by introducing a division of labor in terms of who makes what strategic/operational/tactical decisions - just like in a real war, where there is a clash between organizations of people, rather than one rational mind combating one other rational mind. Just like in DD's game, the actual battles could be farmed out to people playing the physical/face-to-face game somewhere (or on Vassal), whereas the strategic and operational side of it could be done completely online. What the operational level of war would do is to generate the terms of the mission that needs to be played out. Someone else plays that game, and reports the outcome back up the chain of command.

Here's a campaign system I came up with. I've not tested it very extensively yet so I'm not sure how well the balance works, and it does not take Epic rules into account. It's based on the old Rebellion video game.

I was planing on redoing with epic rules in mind. But feel free to take a look and see what you think.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_m608rjpqqHYWxFU3pidEdZOTg/edit?usp=sharing

Here's a campaign system I came up with. I've not tested it very extensively yet so I'm not sure how well the balance works, and it does not take Epic rules into account. It's based on the old Rebellion video game.

I was planing on redoing with epic rules in mind. But feel free to take a look and see what you think.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_m608rjpqqHYWxFU3pidEdZOTg/edit?usp=sharing

That's a beautifully-done campaign system. It's well-presented and very simple to grasp. I like it!

Thanks. I'm not sure what I'd do with it for Epic rules, other then perhaps have everyone use Epic sized fleets with 150 points for garrison perhaps... If you do use it, let me know what you think and any balance issues you might find. Or if you have any questions for that matter.

One thing that I'm noticing across all of these strategic/operational-level rulesets is that they presume the two players starting out on an equal footing. That probably makes for good gameplay, without having to create artificial balancers, but it is very much unlike Star Wars. In the Str Wars Universe, the Empire is... the Empire, and the Rebels are an insurgency. It's inherently an asymmetric war.

So, I'm wondering two things:

1) Is it possible to make a compelling game that builds in the asymmetry of the Star Wars universe?

2) Do people (here) want that?

Some sort of campaign where you can also improve pilots and they somehow survive would be great. Some sort of 'Luck' system, so 'heroes' have a chance of making an impact instead of being smeared across the map by focus fire *Laughs*

Just from the title of the thread I thought the OP was going tell us how we can start cashing checks for residual income by getting in on the ground floor to distribute X-Wing ships to our friends for more than you can buy them normally.

Some sort of campaign where you can also improve pilots and they somehow survive would be great.

Not sure if you checked out my system or not yet. I see you liked my post so perhaps you did. But that's a big part of my system, allowing you to upgrade your pilots, and having to deal with losing heroes. Part of my intention was to give people a reason to flee the battle rather then fight to the bitter end.

I updated it for Epic rules, not much of a change really, but if you downloaded it you might want to grab a new copy from...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_m608rjpqqHYWxFU3pidEdZOTg/edit?usp=sharing

1) Is it possible to make a compelling game that builds in the asymmetry of the Star Wars universe?

2) Do people (here) want that?

I considered that when I started mine. But IMO that would make for a less fun game. What you would need is some way to hide the rebel forces from the Empire, and prevent it from bringing it's might to bear until such a time as the narrative calls for it.

I think such a thing only works well in a story driven campaign, such as a RPG.

I considered that when I started mine. But IMO that would make for a less fun game. What you would need is some way to hide the rebel forces from the Empire, and prevent it from bringing it's might to bear until such a time as the narrative calls for it.

I think such a thing only works well in a story driven campaign, such as a RPG.

And an RPG generally requires a more-or-less fair games master, who has a lot of work to do. I think an online engine could actually solve some of this problem. For starters, it could track the data in a visually compelling way. Secondly it could be assumed to be impartial, so long as the fundamentals were written to be fair. Of course, the 'GM' would have to be someone who could set up the online engine.

Another problem that I've been working through is the gather-people-'round problem, in which it takes (at least) two people to tango. All of this requires tremendous set-up, and not everybody has equal buy-in. In order to play in DagobahDave's system, all I've needed to do is ask my sparring partners at the FLGS if they minded if I recorded what sort of build they used and if I could post a battle report about it. Everything else (the location, the narrative, etc.) was one of my after-the-fact choosing. They obviously chose the builds, but DagobahDave's system is agnostic to that.

I think it's possible that one person could play the computer-generated campaign, asking occasional sparring partners to play the role of the foil. The trick would be if they would be willing to spar under constrained conditions dictated by the mission that the program suggested. Sometimes those would be in their favor, but other times they would not. They might not like the restrictions, but maybe they would like the idea that it's part of a story in which they can participate, even if it is as an antagonist to their sparring partner, who is the 'main character', so to speak.

I don't think the game is just a tactical game - it's also at the operational level - each ship represents one person, with the dice controlling their operational effectiveness. I'd argue it is straddling the tactical and operational levels of response.

Just my tuppence. Some interesting ideas floating around.

I don't think the game is just a tactical game - it's also at the operational level - each ship represents one person, with the dice controlling their operational effectiveness. I'd argue it is straddling the tactical and operational levels of response.

This probably means that we're using different definitions of the terminology. What are your definitions? I'd like to know because maybe you capture an aspect of this that I've overlooked.

My understanding comes from the fire service (whose incident command system came from the Royal Navy). Operational or bronze level, are the boots on the ground, and the hands that carry out the individual jobs. When I tell a firefighter to run a length of hose out down the south side of the building, he or she is working at an operational level, though I'm at a tactical, or silver level, because I've decided on the tactics - whether to use internal or external firefighting, whether to use water or foam, a jet or monitor or whatever.

The tactical level goes further though - it's about ensuring people are well rested, fed and watered, have somewhere to go for a piss. It's about ensuring there are enough pairs of hands to accomplish a task effectively, and that I have the right pieces of equipment or skills in the right place.

The strategic level or gold command is overseeing all of the above in numerous theatres or conflicts at once, so from my perspective, bonfire night is a good example. There may be 150 fire calls in my city, over the course of the night, and 6 fire engines to attend them. The strategic element comes in managing those resources and assigning them to the priority calls first - deciding which type of call gets an attendance and which doesn't warrant it - let the picnic bench burn so we can attend a house fire.

There's more to it than that, but that's a real world example of the incident command system at work. It's a system that is used in varying forms in all the armed forces and blue light agencies and others.

To oversimplify it further;

Operational - hands that do the work (or in x wing, the dice rolls and modifiers that abstract individuals firing, and their skill levels)

Tactical - minds that solve the individual problems (in x wing YOU. You decide to send the interceptors up the flank to try and counter those a wings, or direct your swarm to chip away at the falcon)

Strategic - the big picture (not in x wing currently. Even epic games are at the tactical level).

I considered that when I started mine. But IMO that would make for a less fun game. What you would need is some way to hide the rebel forces from the Empire, and prevent it from bringing it's might to bear until such a time as the narrative calls for it.

I think such a thing only works well in a story driven campaign, such as a RPG.

And an RPG generally requires a more-or-less fair games master, who has a lot of work to do. I think an online engine could actually solve some of this problem. For starters, it could track the data in a visually compelling way. Secondly it could be assumed to be impartial, so long as the fundamentals were written to be fair. Of course, the 'GM' would have to be someone who could set up the online engine.

Another problem that I've been working through is the gather-people-'round problem, in which it takes (at least) two people to tango. All of this requires tremendous set-up, and not everybody has equal buy-in. In order to play in DagobahDave's system, all I've needed to do is ask my sparring partners at the FLGS if they minded if I recorded what sort of build they used and if I could post a battle report about it. Everything else (the location, the narrative, etc.) was one of my after-the-fact choosing. They obviously chose the builds, but DagobahDave's system is agnostic to that.

I think it's possible that one person could play the computer-generated campaign, asking occasional sparring partners to play the role of the foil. The trick would be if they would be willing to spar under constrained conditions dictated by the mission that the program suggested. Sometimes those would be in their favor, but other times they would not. They might not like the restrictions, but maybe they would like the idea that it's part of a story in which they can participate, even if it is as an antagonist to their sparring partner, who is the 'main character', so to speak.

I have pondered this as well especially when creating the story for my second attempt at building a Campaign. Can you get the participants to agree for the progression of story, environment, or universe to put themselves at a disadvantage and perhaps a gross disadvantage? I can't say that I've found it easy for people to agree to this.