So I've got a few notes on how to make one of these, but really would like ideas/suggestions.

Does anyone make narrative campaigns (apart from the ones in mishcontrol) and how do you assign pilot cards/upgrades etc?

Sounds like am awesome idea. Like the idea of a pilot/squad advancing and gaining experience. Then we would need rules for disengagement.

I am going to find and post a beta of something I was working on for a D20 campaign integrated with Xwing. It was never completed.

Edit: actually i'm not, as the parts i was looking for were deleted.

Basically i used a D20 for chance of pilot death / retrievability of ship (2 seperate rolls) there was a set chance for heroes or regulars. Regulars had to roll above 15, heroes above 10. For EVERY hull point past destruction point they had to roll again. My campaign had S&R missions...

I made the Erasmus Campaign and then posted it to Mission Control. Right now, it's been hovering just off the Top 10 list for a few weeks.

Anyways, I based the idea on some old Games Workshop Warhammer Fantasy boxed campaigns they sold back in 5th Ed (maybe 15 years ago?). The always had a base story and 4 games. Each one leads into the others with a climactic battle at the end. If you won one, you got a slight advantage in either the next game or in the final game. With three games to give an advantage, it usually mean someone won at least 1 game and it was pretty balanced.

For my campaign, I wanted to limit unique pilots. I only allowed them into the story if it fit or as a reward for winning. You can play them in all the scenarios after that, but if they died, then you can't use them. Same for unique droids and such. There are some built in game balances, such as the third mission is about hunting down a Rebel Unique. You can pick the Unique and spend the points on them knowing that the mission is to defeat that specific ship. So, the temptation is to make a super defensive ship and have it live to fight in the last mission. You have to take the exact same build, though, and the last mission is about how much damage you can inflict on the Imperials. So, if you spent the points on a super defensive build, it won't really help you much in an offensive mission, will it?

I think this type of mentality works for building a specific campagin with specific missions, but if you want some sort of system for an open ended campaign, then it gets harder to build. Lots of things to figure out.

What would be cool is if someone ran a real open ended campaign on Vassel or something. You had a map of star systems and each side had resource points. You gained points each turn for each star system you held. You had to determine where to put your points in which system. You could also set it up so that the unique pilots could only be in one battle per turn and if they died, they died. Let's say you want to make a major push somewhere and send 200 pts to attack a star system. You would have to set up a hierachy and Rebel Command and Imperial Command to coordinate.

Hi Chad. Looked at your missions on MC... looks great. But have you considered having some kind of random mission generator? Say where a D100 or percentile dice would choose the mission?

Missions such as routine patrol, escort convoys, strike escort, fighter sweep et.

Maybe allow missions of unequal pts as well. Not all sorties are gonna be equal odds...

This is going to be a little stream of conscious-y

Factors: 2 player campaign or multiplayer campaign (each player a squadron?)

Ideas: each player picks one named "leader" to build around, and set generics,

Time lines: Which ships are available, also pre hoth-ROTJ Rebels generally have less manpower than empire, this should be reflected - imperial squadrons should get a solid reinforcement mechanic. Possibly pay squadron points for a reinforcement pool.

Rebels: mostly Hyperdrive capable, not reliant on carriers for capital ships for direct intervention, same for Scum.

Imperials: Mostly do not have hyperdrives - until 1BBY No hyperspace capable starfighters.

Recon and carrier mechanics a must!

Missions must mean something, objectives important - randomly generated vs narrative. Loss of pilots especially for rebel and scum should be ugly (or post ROTJ for anyone) Risk losing objective to keep pilots alive? Risk losing objective to punishingly cause attrition?

S&R Mechanic. Each battle, when a ship is destroyed place a debris token. Next battle if doing an S&R roll scatter dice(we've all played 40k, just do it, or do some other scatter mechanic) and say 1 attack dice, blank=no scatter, hit = range 1 scatter crit = range 2 scatter. Shuttle or large ship required to retrieve pilot or ship, tracking token system as per usual.

Also End point objectives for a campaign need to be defined.

Sector control?

Base construction? Area Denial? Gaining of allies, commerce? Securing trade routes? Evacuating from a catastrophic situation?

Other notes: If Imperials are squadrons attached to base platforms rather than stardestroyers, then this limits the need for Stardestroyers as the big bad. Otherwise, Stardestroyers + the 6 squadrons they carry render all but hit and fade contacts moot. In earlier time settings Rebels cannot and will not risk their larger Capital class ships apart from when absolutely needed. A corvette does not in this instance count as a capital class ship (it is, but well, it's not a mon cal or even a neb B).

There are 101 directions you could go in, depending on what you want. Do you want to create a set of rules for 2-3 players to play with an ongoing story? Or a universal system for any number of players to play generically linked games?

If you have just a few players, you can come up with a base concept and maybe have a mission tree. That’s a set of missions that lead to other missions. In other words, there is a first fight. Depending on who wins, it leads to 2-3 potential missions that the winner gets to pick. Depending on who wins that, it can lead to another set of missions. You can keep going for a while.

EX: The first mission is about some Rebels looking for a new base that bumps into an Imperial patrol. If the Imperials win, it’s about hunting them down. You can have a couple of different scenarios that you can pick from. These can be about cutting off resources or escape routes and eventually culminate in a fight to destroy a capital ship. If the Rebels win the first mission, then maybe it’s about raiding the Imperial system for supplies and hunting down the Imperials before they escape. Culminate in a fight against an Imperial space station to liberate the system for the Rebel Alliance.

These types of things can be fun and easy enough to set up. The replay value might not be there, but you can always tweak it. What you will need is different missions for each area. The more complicated, the more missions you will need.

You could do something completely different, as well. You could take things as a more localized war with resource marshalling. Build a star system with different points of control (repair docs, trading hub, and final bases). Have two sides with specific resources (20 X-wings, 10 Y-wings, 10 A-wings, 100 Proton Torpedoes, etc). You can do things as complicated or not. Have it a grid map with points moving around and a game master running it so that both sides are blind (with possibility of finding out things) unless you send out scouting patrols. Or, you can set up some missions around each important point. So, if the Rebels control the Repair Center, you can have the Imperials attack and try to damage ships that aren’t even flying. Defenders defend, but if the attackers are successful, it can reduce the forces or supplies of the Rebels. Or maybe the Rebels want to destroy the Repair Center and knock it out for a few turns. They have to blow up key components and if they do, then the Imperials don’t get the bonus stuff for 2 turns as repairs happen. You could have a few missions around each key locations as the two forces vie for control and reduce the fighting capability of the others. Maybe have a mechanism where when certain criteria is met, one side can force a full scale battle against the other to finish them off. If they are reduced, they might not have full points to defend themselves and are expelled from the system.

There is the generic system, as well. You can have a list of different missions to run. Roll a d100 and figure out which one. The side that wins or loses then has a modifier for the total of their next mission points. Or maybe, depending on the scenario, that something is limited to one player. If the Imperials manage to win a mission about raiding the supplies of the other, then the Rebels can’t use munitions for the next mission. What I would stress is that you can’t have an affect happen beyond one match, because otherwise it just forces the loser to keep losing. It can’t be bad enough that the person doesn’t have a decent chance to win, either, or the same thing starts to happen.

You could play these missions and reward yourselves with points instead of effects. So, if someone wins big in one mission, they get a full 5 points. The first to 20 wins. All missions are balanced, but there is a real benefit for winning. Missions can be “1 pt for each container destroyed” or some such.

With so many different directions to go, you have to figure out what it is you want to do first and for who? Do you want to make a system that works for your friends? Or make a system that works for everyone on the internet? I would suggest something that works for you and yours and if you have success, then post it online. It might grow. If it doesn’t work local or you don’t have buy in local, it might not work or have buy in on the interwebs.

It's all good.

Hi Chad. Looked at your missions on MC... looks great...

You know, if you LIKED them, they might rise on the charts...... If campaign missions get a lot of positive review, then maybe they will come out with campaigns. Maybe Mission Control is just a test base to see what people like?

Hi Chad. Looked at your missions on MC... looks great...

You know, if you LIKED them, they might rise on the charts...... If campaign missions get a lot of positive review, then maybe they will come out with campaigns. Maybe Mission Control is just a test base to see what people like?

That would be cool.

Hi Chad. Looked at your missions on MC... looks great...

You know, if you LIKED them, they might rise on the charts...... If campaign missions get a lot of positive review, then maybe they will come out with campaigns. Maybe Mission Control is just a test base to see what people like?

a-flipping-men.

Most of my stuff only has 1-2 likes, and I know i've liked every mission i've tried or even liked the concept of.

So......I'll be hitting refresh every 10 minutes to make sure you guys LIKE my missions and bump my #1 into the Top Ten.

As it happens i totally liked them :-) Though ideally the campaign I would run is "Ok, heres your objective, this is what you have, work with that" and Then string together a set of missions.

Dang! I need 4 more to tie the next in line. Thanks, though.

As it happens i totally liked them :-) Though ideally the campaign I would run is "Ok, heres your objective, this is what you have, work with that" and Then string together a set of missions.

My ideal campaign would be similar. Tie's and Y-wing's/Z-95's were the backbone of the two fleets for a long time. It would be nice to people have to make hard decisions with what they have, rather than every encounter being an "showdown of aces."

I'd also like to see buffs from Squadron Leaders, outside of pilot abilities.

Yes, I have a structured campaign system that I developed to a certain point. It's pretty broad in scope and allows both sides (this was before there was a hint of S&V) to engage in a narrative campaign in which they husband resources, but also have strategic objectives and unknown conditions that pop up. It would be online (with userid and password control) in which each side gets to see only their side of things, as well as receive orders from their respective commanders.

However, (as I've mentioned rather glumly in a number of recent threads) a lack of community response and a lack of time on my part have forced me to shelve the project.

As it happens i totally liked them :-) Though ideally the campaign I would run is "Ok, heres your objective, this is what you have, work with that" and Then string together a set of missions.

My ideal campaign would be similar. Tie's and Y-wing's/Z-95's were the backbone of the two fleets for a long time. It would be nice to people have to make hard decisions with what they have, rather than every encounter being an "showdown of aces."

I'd also like to see buffs from Squadron Leaders, outside of pilot abilities.

We already have the latter, Sometimes your squadron leader is someone who buffs the group (Garven, Howlie) Sometimes they are a monster of a pilot (Wedge, Sexy Rexy).

Yes, I have a structured campaign system that I developed to a certain point. It's pretty broad in scope and allows both sides (this was before there was a hint of S&V) to engage in a narrative campaign in which they husband resources, but also have strategic objectives and unknown conditions that pop up. It would be online (with userid and password control) in which each side gets to see only their side of things, as well as receive orders from their respective commanders.

However, (as I've mentioned rather glumly in a number of recent threads) a lack of community response and a lack of time on my part have forced me to shelve the project.

It does sound pretty awesome.

My biggest issue with campaigns is how to handle capital ships and the disparity of resources.

As it happens i totally liked them :-) Though ideally the campaign I would run is "Ok, heres your objective, this is what you have, work with that" and Then string together a set of missions.

My ideal campaign would be similar. Tie's and Y-wing's/Z-95's were the backbone of the two fleets for a long time. It would be nice to people have to make hard decisions with what they have, rather than every encounter being an "showdown of aces."

I'd also like to see buffs from Squadron Leaders, outside of pilot abilities.

We already have the latter, Sometimes your squadron leader is someone who buffs the group (Garven, Howlie) Sometimes they are a monster of a pilot (Wedge, Sexy Rexy).

True, but they are rather limited in scope. I'd be cool with a couple like Howlrunner, but since the game would shift from from tactical to strategic, I'd like to see abilities on that level (deploy out of order/different distance from edge,etc). Hard to give example without having a set of campaign rules in front of me to break.

As it happens i totally liked them :-) Though ideally the campaign I would run is "Ok, heres your objective, this is what you have, work with that" and Then string together a set of missions.

My ideal campaign would be similar. Tie's and Y-wing's/Z-95's were the backbone of the two fleets for a long time. It would be nice to people have to make hard decisions with what they have, rather than every encounter being an "showdown of aces."

I'd also like to see buffs from Squadron Leaders, outside of pilot abilities.

We already have the latter, Sometimes your squadron leader is someone who buffs the group (Garven, Howlie) Sometimes they are a monster of a pilot (Wedge, Sexy Rexy).

True, but they are rather limited in scope. I'd be cool with a couple like Howlrunner, but since the game would shift from from tactical to strategic, I'd like to see abilities on that level (deploy out of order/different distance from edge,etc). Hard to give example without having a set of campaign rules in front of me to break.

I understand what you mean. Basically abilities that shape the battle indirectly rather than by adding more pewpewpew. Example. They can relocate a couple of asteroid markers. Or a couple ships can arrive from a neutral edge.

Yes, I have a structured campaign system that I developed to a certain point. It's pretty broad in scope and allows both sides (this was before there was a hint of S&V) to engage in a narrative campaign in which they husband resources, but also have strategic objectives and unknown conditions that pop up. It would be online (with userid and password control) in which each side gets to see only their side of things, as well as receive orders from their respective commanders.

However, (as I've mentioned rather glumly in a number of recent threads) a lack of community response and a lack of time on my part have forced me to shelve the project.

It does sound pretty awesome.

My biggest issue with campaigns is how to handle capital ships and the disparity of resources.

I think the main thing to do is to remember that the Galactic Civil War is not a symmetric war. Even though Lucas was inspired by WWII, this is not a case of two states warring against eachother with regular militaries. It is a galactic government against an insurgency. Sure, it is pretending to be a regular military in order to gain the semblance of legitimacy (kind of like George Washington's campaign in the north), but that's the image, not the reality.

My campaign is about the rebels attempting to build an operational base in secret and the Empire learning about the rebel presence in the sector and then its attempts to locate it.

At the current stage of development, the only capital ship action is a rebel transport attempting to get past an Imperial blockade.

Yes, I have a structured campaign system that I developed to a certain point. It's pretty broad in scope and allows both sides (this was before there was a hint of S&V) to engage in a narrative campaign in which they husband resources, but also have strategic objectives and unknown conditions that pop up. It would be online (with userid and password control) in which each side gets to see only their side of things, as well as receive orders from their respective commanders.

However, (as I've mentioned rather glumly in a number of recent threads) a lack of community response and a lack of time on my part have forced me to shelve the project.

It does sound pretty awesome.

My biggest issue with campaigns is how to handle capital ships and the disparity of resources.

I think the main thing to do is to remember that the Galactic Civil War is not a symmetric war. Even though Lucas was inspired by WWII, this is not a case of two states warring against eachother with regular militaries. It is a galactic government against an insurgency. Sure, it is pretending to be a regular military in order to gain the semblance of legitimacy (kind of like George Washington's campaign in the north), but that's the image, not the reality.

My campaign is about the rebels attempting to build an operational base in secret and the Empire learning about the rebel presence in the sector and then its attempts to locate it.

Yeah, and most pre ROTJ campaigns should be along that gist. I did like how the GR75 campaign worked. Imperials had no care how many casualties they had, Rebels were deeply casualty conscious.

At the current stage of development, the only capital ship action is a rebel transport attempting to get past an Imperial blockade.

On a bit of a tangent, if an Imperial Epic ship comes out, I would like the idea of building a squadron, naming it, then pairing it to a Capital Ship as a home base. Squadrons without a home base wouldn't be able to resupply (rearm ordinance, repair hull damage, etc) but could be more mobile. Hyperdrive capable ships could move a little further on their own (making the TIE Advanced useful again!)

I have a campaign system I wrote up that's based loosely on the Star Wars Rebellion video game. Two sides, Imperial and Rebel and you fight over and capture planets, until one side takes out the other capital or 12 turns are over.

It has rules for losing pilots as well as upgrading them and so forth. If anyone wants a copy shoot me a PM and I'll send you a link.