Previous cost to increase pilot skill... great!

Going from 3 to 4 would cost three. Going from 4 to 5 would cost 4...

Now to make it a little easier past 5... going from 5 to 6 costs Four. Going from 6 to 7 costs three. 7 to 8 costs two. 8 to 9 costs one.

Depends on how easy it is to accrue 1 point to use to buy stuff. This model does a great job of prioritizing getting ace status but after you achieve that (PS5) the gradations are much smaller and when you're almost the best becoming "the best" is really more about the "best" dying and not really about you improving any farther. Could even have a rule that you can only have 1 PS9, 2 PS8, 3PS7. Could be fun.

Well. Its mostly complex re-balancing youre doing. Which is fine.

I come from the Starcraft forums though, where people try and do this all the time, and most have little clue about the game and very little understanding of balance and restraint in the first place... so they tend to come up with unbalanced untested things.

My creative mind balks and says that it introduces too many hard to test variables. Whereas the PS level and the rewards/recover system ive actually done some quick theory testing with to try and get some decent numbers and see how it works. my first few iterations were completely unbalanced. the winning side easily snowballed.

This is an important question - what keeps a campaign fun and exciting? To what degree should snowballing be prevented? If it's prevented altogether, doesn't that diminish the value of winning a particular mission? At that point, how is it any different from playing 6-asteroid-100-pnt battles?

Nice!

Here is my stores campaign:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/89973/my-stores-star-wars-x-wing-campaign

It is interesting to see what other people come up with for campaign systems. Here is a link to mine if anyone wants to take a look or lift mechanics.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zho289drj0p8b8n/X-wing%20Campaign%203.2.0.docx

The approach I adopted was to give each pilot 1XP per battle plus 1 XP if they killed an enemy ship (2XP for large base ships). I opted not to give more XP for winning because often people learn as much (or more) from a loss, and XP for kills encourages combat, making it less attractive to try to safely farm XP on a particular pilot. XP can be spent to increase PS, add EPT slots, pilot abilities and ship qualifications. The catch is that things like PS and pilot abilities add to the squad point cost to the pilot, so while they become more powerful, they are also more expensive to field. This prevents one side from completely snowballing, and gives the player cost-benefit decisions. Sure, they can add a pilot ability to one of their guys to do things they otherwise cannot (and there is a cost discount), but then that ability is permanently part of that pilot and they can never be fielded at their cheaper state again. Also, your pilots can die, so Mr. Awesome might take the entire enemy squad to the face. Each player only gets one of the existing unique pilots as their "squadron commander," and they are unique across the entire faction, so you cannot have four Howlrunners in play.

My system for giving generic pilots pilot abilities uses only existing EPT and generic crew upgrades. That way everything starts from a known cost, and fewer of FFG's underlying balance assumptions (of which we may not be aware) should be violated.

The capital ship system in this version has been scrapped, and I am working on a replacement that uses the GR-75 and CR-90.

Well. Its mostly complex re-balancing youre doing. Which is fine.

I come from the Starcraft forums though, where people try and do this all the time, and most have little clue about the game and very little understanding of balance and restraint in the first place... so they tend to come up with unbalanced untested things.

My creative mind balks and says that it introduces too many hard to test variables. Whereas the PS level and the rewards/recover system ive actually done some quick theory testing with to try and get some decent numbers and see how it works. my first few iterations were completely unbalanced. the winning side easily snowballed.

This is an important question - what keeps a campaign fun and exciting? To what degree should snowballing be prevented? If it's prevented altogether, doesn't that diminish the value of winning a particular mission? At that point, how is it any different from playing 6-asteroid-100-pnt battles?

Well, I'd say its "back and forth"ness. The ability to have that. While also meriting the winning side appropriately but not overwhelmingly.

in my system you tended to lose about 30pts per a win and a loss, and since you only won 20pts back on a win, it slowly depleted the ship but allowed for multiple games around 5 to 8 before things become slightly restrictive.

Alos, you can still make any missions you want. with whatever scenarios you saw fit.

Previous cost to increase pilot skill... great!

Going from 3 to 4 would cost three. Going from 4 to 5 would cost 4...

Now to make it a little easier past 5... going from 5 to 6 costs Four. Going from 6 to 7 costs three. 7 to 8 costs two. 8 to 9 costs one.

Depends on how easy it is to accrue 1 point to use to buy stuff. This model does a great job of prioritizing getting ace status but after you achieve that (PS5) the gradations are much smaller and when you're almost the best becoming "the best" is really more about the "best" dying and not really about you improving any farther. Could even have a rule that you can only have 1 PS9, 2 PS8, 3PS7. Could be fun.

This doesn't seem to make any sense. Why would it cost that much less? I would feel like it should cost more to get even higher.

I'm not really sure why waiting for the best to die off is exciting...

Its also harder to remember.

And the limit cap is kind of weird.

Oh Babaganoosh,

In your system, do people buy pilot cards in force requisition or ships?

say i have only 4 ties. do I buy only 4 ties total, or can i buy 4 acads and 4 obsidians?

I'm wondering what I should do for mine. Since I have limited ships, I'm considering ships.

Oh Babaganoosh,

In your system, do people buy pilot cards in force requisition or ships?

say i have only 4 ties. do I buy only 4 ties total, or can i buy 4 acads and 4 obsidians?

I'm wondering what I should do for mine. Since I have limited ships, I'm considering ships.

You buy ships in Force Requisition, since the game's ships and pilots are linked.

If you have only 4 TIE fighters then it is probably best to only buy four TIE fighter pilots of any type, so you don't have issues fielding your squadron. Alternatively you could proxy ships or use Vassal.

Well. Its mostly complex re-balancing youre doing. Which is fine.

I come from the Starcraft forums though, where people try and do this all the time, and most have little clue about the game and very little understanding of balance and restraint in the first place... so they tend to come up with unbalanced untested things.

My creative mind balks and says that it introduces too many hard to test variables. Whereas the PS level and the rewards/recover system ive actually done some quick theory testing with to try and get some decent numbers and see how it works. my first few iterations were completely unbalanced. the winning side easily snowballed.

This is an important question - what keeps a campaign fun and exciting? To what degree should snowballing be prevented? If it's prevented altogether, doesn't that diminish the value of winning a particular mission? At that point, how is it any different from playing 6-asteroid-100-pnt battles?

I think I want the capacity to snowball, but it can't be too early or easy to do so. I plan on making the final mission have built-in benefits for the defender, so that one player actually has to accrue an advantage in order to have a good chance to win, but the final battle should still be contentious.

It is interesting to see what other people come up with for campaign systems. Here is a link to mine if anyone wants to take a look or lift mechanics.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zho289drj0p8b8n/X-wing%20Campaign%203.2.0.docx

The approach I adopted was to give each pilot 1XP per battle plus 1 XP if they killed an enemy ship (2XP for large base ships). I opted not to give more XP for winning because often people learn as much (or more) from a loss, and XP for kills encourages combat, making it less attractive to try to safely farm XP on a particular pilot. XP can be spent to increase PS, add EPT slots, pilot abilities and ship qualifications. The catch is that things like PS and pilot abilities add to the squad point cost to the pilot, so while they become more powerful, they are also more expensive to field. This prevents one side from completely snowballing, and gives the player cost-benefit decisions. Sure, they can add a pilot ability to one of their guys to do things they otherwise cannot (and there is a cost discount), but then that ability is permanently part of that pilot and they can never be fielded at their cheaper state again. Also, your pilots can die, so Mr. Awesome might take the entire enemy squad to the face. Each player only gets one of the existing unique pilots as their "squadron commander," and they are unique across the entire faction, so you cannot have four Howlrunners in play.

My system for giving generic pilots pilot abilities uses only existing EPT and generic crew upgrades. That way everything starts from a known cost, and fewer of FFG's underlying balance assumptions (of which we may not be aware) should be violated.

The capital ship system in this version has been scrapped, and I am working on a replacement that uses the GR-75 and CR-90.

Looks very thorough and well-considered; I'll be reading through this system soon. Thanks for sharing!

I did consider giving pilots XP for kills, but I decided not to because it would devalue support ships, and it could give a strong advantage to players fighting swarm lists. Do you think that was an overreaction?

I didn't feel that XP for kills was an exciting thing. yes, i think it promotes killing ships over support ships. besides, unofficially counting kills for a ship is pretty fun. one of my bombers is up to 3 kills right now. =) Took out an entire squad on its own by chance.

Besides, lessons learned aren't always from downing another ship.

The XP system seemed to be self-balancing in the two campaigns I have run to date. There were some issues regarding costs of improvements we worked out along the way, but we never changed the way XP was awarded. The second and largest iteration included Wave 3, so we had some support ships in play. While the Empire tends to get more XP from fielding more ships, that XP is spread across more pilots who are individually less likely to get kills and are more vulnerable to being lost. Conversely the Rebels get less XP from participating, but more XP from kills because they are generally outnumbered by inferior fighters. That XP is also concentrated in fewer individuals who generally have better survival rates. Shields also increase the likelihood that a Rebel fighter can take some hits and not be forced to sit out the next turn for repairs. Also remember that while pilots can die in my system (crit on ejection roll), they are more likely to be lost as POWs if they eject and the enemy holds the map at the end of the scenario. There is generally significant turnover, so your uber pilot might not be in play very long. Even if you spam generic pilots with his same improvements, they take time (battles to get XP) to "manufacture."

We had no problem with support ships for a number of reasons. I limited the number of non-fighters (Firesprays, HWKs and Shuttles) an individual player could own. Part of the reason was thematic as I wanted to focus on fighter ops, but I also need to balance the strategic survivability of the larger ships against the smaller ones. It is much easier to flee the board when you start with 13 hit points and a large base than 3 on a small. This meant we never had Firespray/Shuttle heavy players next to pure TIE Swarmers to see if a serious disparity developed. Additionally, I included scenarios (and some slightly more roleplay oriented side missions) that required the use of ships with empty crew slots (store cargo, rescue prisoners, etc.), so that gave the support ships a unique niche to fill. And of course very few people chose unique pilots from "support ships" as their squadron commanders, so the support role that those vessels tend to play in tabletop was not as prevalent.

I tried to craft a system where your tactical decisions had strategic ramifications. In a normal game of X-wing you fight to the death because that battle is all there is. If you got an early bloody nose, you have nothing to lose by tring to bring it back. In a campaign environment, those ships and pilots are assets. Do you risk it all to win the battle or cut and run to save what you can for future use? Do you try to hold the field even after victory to recover your ejected pilots or abandon them to the enemy? We had a great range of outcomes in the second campaign. There were your typical wins, people getting spooked into running when they maybe did not need to and doubling down to drag out a win because the strategic situation necessitated it. Several times, a player "won" the battle but took heavy losses doing so while the other side got off light. If my rules let you achieve a tactical victory while suffering a strategic defeat, I consider them successful.

This doesn't seem to make any sense. Why would it cost that much less? I would feel like it should cost more to get even higher.

I'm not really sure why waiting for the best to die off is exciting...

Its also harder to remember.

And the limit cap is kind of weird.

The Value of PS is not constant. 4 is significantly better than 1,2, and maybe even 3. 5 and 6 still beat most things but is only better than 4 if your opponent have PS 4 ships, 7 is really only better than a handful of ships you might face, 8 and 9 are only beating out what, 6 or so ships (if you're talking cross faction fights and pre-wave 4). The value of a higher PS lessens, especially if you are also paying an increase in ship costs. If you are also not increasing the ship cost in build points then this isn't needed as much. Combined with the "limit" to how many "aces" you can have, you can manage your points and pilots more effectively.

The "die off" is more dramatic and story based. Might not work. Just an idea. Same with how many Aces you can have at various levels. You build up your best... you train them, you trick out their ships. But one is your ACE. Only one. And if he falls in glorious battle someone else will have to step up to be the new "ACE".

So, how do/would you guys structure the missions and what/how many ships get deployed to each?

Babaganoosh's system allows for either linear or free-form. But I take it that this is a structure for a campaign, rather than a distinct story. I'm seeing that for each mission, the players are allowed to field X and Y number of points, depending on their role in the mission, out of their existing stock of ships.

As I'm building my own system, I do have to say that this is a very simple and elegant solution. I'm reshaping my thoughts about my own system in order to make it more like his.

The XP system seemed to be self-balancing in the two campaigns I have run to date. There were some issues regarding costs of improvements we worked out along the way, but we never changed the way XP was awarded. The second and largest iteration included Wave 3, so we had some support ships in play. While the Empire tends to get more XP from fielding more ships, that XP is spread across more pilots who are individually less likely to get kills and are more vulnerable to being lost. Conversely the Rebels get less XP from participating, but more XP from kills because they are generally outnumbered by inferior fighters. That XP is also concentrated in fewer individuals who generally have better survival rates. Shields also increase the likelihood that a Rebel fighter can take some hits and not be forced to sit out the next turn for repairs. Also remember that while pilots can die in my system (crit on ejection roll), they are more likely to be lost as POWs if they eject and the enemy holds the map at the end of the scenario. There is generally significant turnover, so your uber pilot might not be in play very long. Even if you spam generic pilots with his same improvements, they take time (battles to get XP) to "manufacture."

We had no problem with support ships for a number of reasons. I limited the number of non-fighters (Firesprays, HWKs and Shuttles) an individual player could own. Part of the reason was thematic as I wanted to focus on fighter ops, but I also need to balance the strategic survivability of the larger ships against the smaller ones. It is much easier to flee the board when you start with 13 hit points and a large base than 3 on a small. This meant we never had Firespray/Shuttle heavy players next to pure TIE Swarmers to see if a serious disparity developed. Additionally, I included scenarios (and some slightly more roleplay oriented side missions) that required the use of ships with empty crew slots (store cargo, rescue prisoners, etc.), so that gave the support ships a unique niche to fill. And of course very few people chose unique pilots from "support ships" as their squadron commanders, so the support role that those vessels tend to play in tabletop was not as prevalent.

I tried to craft a system where your tactical decisions had strategic ramifications. In a normal game of X-wing you fight to the death because that battle is all there is. If you got an early bloody nose, you have nothing to lose by tring to bring it back. In a campaign environment, those ships and pilots are assets. Do you risk it all to win the battle or cut and run to save what you can for future use? Do you try to hold the field even after victory to recover your ejected pilots or abandon them to the enemy? We had a great range of outcomes in the second campaign. There were your typical wins, people getting spooked into running when they maybe did not need to and doubling down to drag out a win because the strategic situation necessitated it. Several times, a player "won" the battle but took heavy losses doing so while the other side got off light. If my rules let you achieve a tactical victory while suffering a strategic defeat, I consider them successful.

I'd have to say that this form is seriously constricting. Some of us WANT to run 4 shuttles or 4 HWKs as a squad because that is cool and squad-like and rather fun.

Also, shuttles are particularly strong combatants. So is the Firespray. They are also interesting and unique to fly. The firespray is also, not exactly a support ship. its more of an offensive object.

Sorry, I guess again, we are making different systems. And if it works for you, that's awesome.

The problem I think is that XPkills inflates the Rebels... Then again you have playtested this a few times. They get more XP, concentrated on fewer ships. Also, a higher PS isn't worth the same as a higher PS B-wing.

XP for participation does balance that because of squad points. 2 academies equals a B-wing.

--

Rakky, it depends on what else you can buy PS from I guess.

That idea of the "Ace" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean you can have a whole squadron of aces for instance, or a really good squad. Also, historically, doesn't "ace" mean 5 kills? That it.

I think your definition is more like some sort of MVP. It's also kind of a weird cap.

I'll wade in with my own system.

Http://www.winterdyne.co.uk/maz/bsl_campaign.pdf

I didn't bother with pilot progression per se, instead I allowed the upgrade of pilots to another by paying the difference in squad points, with named pilots being end-of-chain. Individual ship contribution doesn't matter so much as overall performance in game. Partly this is because rebel ships tend to be a lot more survivable than a common TIE.

I also tried to make imperial ships with hyperdrives more useful in a squadron; the Tie advanced may be over costed, but it's one of the few imperial ships that can easily escape a bad situation. I also allowed royal guard interceptors a hyperdrive as they're high-value ships. Basic ties and so on rely on not being on the losing side if they want pickup.

I'd have to say that this form is seriously constricting. Some of us WANT to run 4 shuttles or 4 HWKs as a squad because that is cool and squad-like and rather fun.

I think the takeaway here is that different people get fun different ways. I know that I get my fun by deeply embedding my games in the SWU, but I also know that I'm a bit of an outlier in this respect.

So, the challenge is to connect with the people who share your conception of fun, and build (or find) a structure that allows you to do that.

For my part, I join Rekkon in his thematic limitation, though I implement it radically differently.

I'd have to say that this form is seriously constricting. Some of us WANT to run 4 shuttles or 4 HWKs as a squad because that is cool and squad-like and rather fun.

I think the takeaway here is that different people get fun different ways. I know that I get my fun by deeply embedding my games in the SWU, but I also know that I'm a bit of an outlier in this respect.

So, the challenge is to connect with the people who share your conception of fun, and build (or find) a structure that allows you to do that.

For my part, I join Rekkon in his thematic limitation, though I implement it radically differently.

Well it kind of stops those who think differently from doing what they love with your shared games, which I think is a little sad. Of course, compromise is good and I'm sure they will find enjoyment in other aspects too. Honestly though, I love my singular shuttle.

Also, more complex rules make this game even harder to play optimally. Added complexity is the last thing this game really needs I think.

You see a lot of complexity creep in MTG up until like 2010 when they realized this and began taking drastic steps to tone it down.

--

I would say though, that if the systems work, it should be fun anyways.

I'll wade in with my own system.

Http://www.winterdyne.co.uk/maz/bsl_campaign.pdf

Oh wow!

This is a great resource for missions, if nothing else.

I really like those missions that have stages, like the asteroid base one where you start with a scouting party, then unleash an assault force.

Well it kind of stops those who think differently from doing what they love with your shared games, which I think is a little sad. Of course, compromise is good and I'm sure they will find enjoyment in other aspects too. Honestly though, I love my singular shuttle.

You're right - that is sad.

On the flip side, I would find less fun in a game in which a Lamda shuttle is used as a dedicated combat vessel, rather than a VIP transport. It just violates my sense of Star Wars too much.

So, ideally, there would be many different types of campaign that people could play in. I think that the campaign designer should try to accommodate the community he's building for, but it's his own fun in building and creating that's going to sustain his creative process.

Also, more complex rules make this game even harder to play optimally. Added complexity is the last thing this game really needs I think.

You see a lot of complexity creep in MTG up until like 2010 when they realized this and began taking drastic steps to tone it down.

I'll take your word for it on the MTG front. For my part, I'm trying to hide the complexity in the computer (ie. insource it into my modest ability to code). That way, the players can do two things which I think makes this game fun:

1. offer narrative stakes to our X-Wing battles

2. offer varying combat conditions to break away from the 6-asteroid-100-point-death-match.

I think that as long as a campaign offers these two things, without making the interface (be that a .pdf document, a stack of playing cards, or a computer program) too distracting, then all is well. That, of course, is no mean challenge.

However, I think the bigger challenge is finding the community that wants to play this with you. In that sense, you're right that there should be certain degrees of freedom. I guess I'm allowling this by having the Empire face very different constraints than the rebels. In my game, you couldn't do 4 shuttles, but you could do 4 HWKs. The Empire is limited by its rigid order of battle, whereas the rebels are limited by resources.

Updated the campaign guide link in the original post with the most recent version.

I opted to slow down and simplify pilot progression by having players move their pilots along a PS track each battle. It slows down after PS4, and the EPT slot is automatic at PS6.

I cleaned up in several places and added a new mission and a few examples for clarity.

I decided not to implement a cost increase for increases in PS/ ship upgrades; my thinking is that the slow-down in pilot progression should prevent early snowballing, and players will become more conservative flying heavily upgraded ships/pilots, giving players flying fresh ships a level playing field because they can afford to be more aggressive.

So, how do/would you guys structure the missions and what/how many ships get deployed to each?

In my system each player chooses a strategic target to attack each turn. If the owner chooses to defend it, a battle happens. You roll on a table to determine what scenario is played. Pretty much all of them are adapted from the FFG ones, though I am (slowly) creating and balancing new ones based on original ideas and ACTA setups. Some scenarios (like regular dogfight) also have you roll to determine the size of the battle. Once the scenario and point size is known, each player builds a squad from their available ships, pilots and upgrades. There are also "terrain" variations, though those are typically determined by the strategic target.

I'd have to say that this form is seriously constricting. Some of us WANT to run 4 shuttles or 4 HWKs as a squad because that is cool and squad-like and rather fun.

Also, shuttles are particularly strong combatants. So is the Firespray. They are also interesting and unique to fly. The firespray is also, not exactly a support ship. its more of an offensive object.

In theory, yes (and you can always adjust your thematic restrictions to taste), but in practice not really (as long as you have enough players). The ship restrictions are done at the faction level, not at the player level. A faction of six players can have six shuttles. This does not necessarily mean one shuttle per player. You could have one with four and two with one, three with two, etc. This allows people that do not care to fly those ships to "give" their allotment of them to those that do. And to reiterate, this was not merely a thematic restriction. Ships with more health can more easily run from a battle gone bad. The diversity of ships used in a campaign would suffer far more if everyone only used large ships because they offered significant long term attrition advantages than by instituting an artificial limit on certain ship types.

A lot of eyes were on the last iteration of my campaign system, up to twelve players at one point, including some World Champions and FFG play testers. They helped iron out and integrity test a lot of things.

Baba, I like this a great deal. Plus, your campaign manual is crafted quite well :-)

Makes me want to play right now!