As stated in another topic (https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/177002-i-really-love-sw-armada-i-really-do-but%E2'> I have issues with the 'Tournament only'-concept the ffg is selling us.

So, I have made a first (very) rough draft of campaign rules that will result in scenarios for Armada only (not an epic link with the other SW games as mentioned in another topic)

Please let me know what you think. Is this completely foolish, or something that can be worked on?

All remarks, suggestions, enhancements are most welcome.

I have been thinking about this a lot and would do something like this:

The Premise

A long time ago in a sector far, far away.

The emperor is dead. Rebel forces are on the offensive and are gaining control in sector after sector. This remote sector is next on the list

The map

A map with 7 planets:

a) The sector capital, loyalty rating 6, with space dock, resource rating nn

b) A planet, LR 5, with squadron manufacturing facilities, resource rating nn

c) A planet LR 5, resource rating nn

d) A planet, LR 3, with squadron manufacturing facilities, resource rating nn

e) A planet, LR2, resource rating nn, , with space dock

f) A planet, LR 1, resource rating nn

g) A rebellious planet, LR 0 with space dock and squadron manufacturing, resource rating nn

Fleets

Each player has a number of points to create fleets with a number of points (3000?). Also, commanders have to be purchased. Unique cards can only be chosen once (but dead unique cards can be resurrected on new ships/squadrons, only).

The existing commanders can be chosen, but also unnamed commanders can be bought for 10 points each. These have no special abilities but allow multiple ships to be assigned to missions.

Both players can also buy Q-ships, armed convoy vessels with the same stats as a Lancer or a CR-90, but no cards are allowed.

Squadrons can be assigned to ships based on the squadron rating.

Economics

The empire receives resource based on planet resources minus raiding, minus lost convoys

Same for the rebels, except raiding only can happen once planets are in rebellion

Resources can be used to

· buy ships

· Repair ships (resources are also used for in-mission engineering, costs to be determined)

· Repair squadrons, per step

· Buy new squadrons

Ships/squadrons are built on appropriate planets

Loyalty

Planets with LR 6 are firmly in the empires camp, LR 0 means rebellion.

Missions on planets will affect the LR based on the result of the mission. When LR Goes to zero, it goes into rebellion. Rebellious planets go back to the empire when LR=6

Missions

Convoy duty defense

Each side has a number of convoys equal to the total resources divided by 50, but minimum 1. Fleets can be assigned to convoy duty to guard against convoy attacks. Assign each fleet to a convoy number.

Convoy attack

Assign fleets to attack convoy routes. Randomly choose which convoy is attacked. Each convoy has up 5 transport vessels , each carrying 10 resources. Transports have 5 hull and 1 shield in each quarter. The move is ‘1 I’. They have one evade token and one brace.

Raid - Attack

Assign fleets to raid the resources of a planet. When destroying or chasing off all defenders on the planet, the resources for that turn are lost. Winning a raid will alter the LR with 1 to the winning camp, losing to the defending side. Planets cannot be Raided and invaded in the same campaign turn.

Attack facilities

Attack the facilities on a planet. When destroying or chasing off all defenders on the planet, the facility cannot be used that turn. Winning a facility attack will alter the LR with 1 to the winning camp.

Facility defend

Defend the facilities on one planet

Invasion - Attack

Invade a planet. An invasion fleet exists of the assigned fleet + 8 invasion transports (see convoy attack). When destroying or chasing off all defenders on the planet, roll a 6-sided die. If the dice roll is less than the number of surviving transports:

· the planet is captured

· the LR is set to 0 (rebel invasion) or 6 (empire invasion)

If unsuccessful, the LR is altered by 2 for the defending side.

Planet defense

Ships assigned to planet defense (for a specific planet!), defend against Raids and invasions

Reserve

Fleets in reserve can be assigned to reinforce the defender against attack missions. They are assigned after declaring all attacking and defending missions.

Fleet assignment

During a campaign turn, fleets are assigned to missions/planets

Commanders can command fleets as follow:

· Each side has 1 commander that can command fleets of 500 points

· Each side has 2 commander that can command 400 point fleets

· Other named commanders can command 300 points

· Unnamed commanders command 200 points

· Lone ships can also be assigned to missions without commander

Scenario game turn changes

The scenario turn sequence is changed as follows

· Pre-scenario: if reserves are committed, create a fate cup with following chits

o 1 ‘arrive’ token

o 5 ‘not arrive’ tokens

· Command phase

· Starting on turn 6: Withdrawal declaration: each side simultaneously and secretly decides if they will withdraw this turn

· Reserve arrival:

o On turn 4 take one token from the reserve cup

o On turns 5 and 6 take two tokens

o Reserves arrive automatically on turn 7

· Ship phase

· Squadron phase

· Withdrawal phase: reveal choices and execute withdrawal

· Status phase

Just based on the overall concept, I have a few questions for you:

How many people can realistically play in this game?

It seems to me that this is on a fairly high order of complexity and I suspect the degree of complexity and the realistic number of participants are inversely related.

How does this insure that games of Armada remain fun?

The problem with any campaign that allows for different sizes of fleets (which is realistic) also creates conditions for unbalanced match-ups. In many ways, the whole point of campaign strategy is to create conditions where you outnumber your opponent and secure victories that you can count on winning, regardless of the tactics used in an engagement. But our first meta-priority should be to make our games of Armada more fun by giving them stakes, rather than having Armada just be the resolution mechanism to a higher game.

I like a lot of the concepts you develop here. Particularly the reserve and withdrawal mechanisms. I think they help the issue in my second question, but is it enough?

One thing to remember is that this is Star Wars, and ships can jump in from halfway across the galaxy in a short amount of time. You may want to simplify, and instead of having resources and manufacturing, maybe convert some percentage of enemy points destroyed as reinforcements. Also remember that Rebel fighters have hyperdrives, and can jump independently.

One thing to remember is that this is Star Wars, and ships can jump in from halfway across the galaxy in a short amount of time.

Well, that's subject to interpretation. My headcanon (based on the old West End Games RPG) gives us a galaxy that takes longer to travel around. That's certainly what I based my nav computer around. Many people who conceive of travel times in the galaxy as you do turn my days into hours. However, that still leaves a significant lag-time in terms of strategic response rate.

You may want to simplify, and instead of having resources and manufacturing, maybe convert some percentage of enemy points destroyed as reinforcements. Also remember that Rebel fighters have hyperdrives, and can jump independently.

Here's the big dilemma. How simulationist do you want to make the campaign? I have a simulationist soul, but I know the more complex you make a campaign, the fewer people it's going to appeal to. Now, if it's just two very dedicated people, then their ingenuity is the limit.

I personally like this campaign concept but some things confuse me like invasions. If you get an invading force AND 8 invasion transports, how can one NOT win the roll?

Resource generation is nice and this campaign works well with up to 4 players I think. After that though and things seem to get crazy. . .

One thing to remember is that this is Star Wars, and ships can jump in from halfway across the galaxy in a short amount of time.

Well, that's subject to interpretation. My headcanon (based on the old West End Games RPG) gives us a galaxy that takes longer to travel around. That's certainly what I based my nav computer around. Many people who conceive of travel times in the galaxy as you do turn my days into hours. However, that still leaves a significant lag-time in terms of strategic response rate.

You may want to simplify, and instead of having resources and manufacturing, maybe convert some percentage of enemy points destroyed as reinforcements. Also remember that Rebel fighters have hyperdrives, and can jump independently.

Here's the big dilemma. How simulationist do you want to make the campaign? I have a simulationist soul, but I know the more complex you make a campaign, the fewer people it's going to appeal to. Now, if it's just two very dedicated people, then their ingenuity is the limit.

It's short enough that the average fighter pilot can survive in a cockpit for a few hours (see ESB, ROTJ, or the X-Wing novels). Obviously, fighters would likely have a shorter range than a capital ship. It depends on how long a strategic turn is. If a turn is a few days, then that gives enough wiggle room for reinforcements to jump in.

Lyraeus,

If we were to seriously get something like this going, I'd be really tempted to get some shapeways models to represent the bulk freighters and action transports.

I saw this image for a troop transport a while ago, and while it's fan-brew, I really like it. A friend of mine even made RPG stats for it.

How many people can realistically play in this game?

It seems to me that this is on a fairly high order of complexity and I suspect the degree of complexity and the realistic number of participants are inversely related.

Campaign length = battles

nbr of players/2

A lot depends of course on the size of the campaign map. But, let's say 7 planets. The defender has to defend a lot, so it will be the attacker that decides where battles are fought. Let's suppose that the rebel is the attacker and has the abiliy to make 4 attacks (scenarios) per campaign game turn. If we are just two, that would translate in 4 sessions per campaign turn.

How does this insure that games of Armada remain fun?

The problem with any campaign that allows for different sizes of fleets (which is realistic) also creates conditions for unbalanced match-ups. In many ways, the whole point of campaign strategy is to create conditions where you outnumber your opponent and secure victories that you can count on winning, regardless of the tactics used in an engagement. But our first meta-priority should be to make our games of Armada more fun by giving them stakes, rather than having Armada just be the resolution mechanism to a higher game.

Well, that I hope to have covered by the fleet assignement rules, where commanders can only command certain sizes of fleets...

I personally like this campaign concept but some things confuse me like invasions. If you get an invading force AND 8 invasion transports, how can one NOT win the roll?

Well, it is up to the defender to destroy those transports before they can make their invasion. And remember, this is still on the drawing board. Scenarios (ans especially this one) would have to be tested beforehand.

Resource generation is nice and this campaign works well with up to 4 players I think. After that though and things seem to get crazy. . .

I do not agree there: You need two (and I think only two) overall commanders responsible for the strategic turn. Results are the scenarios, and you can have as mamy players as number of scenarios per campaign turn times 2.

And for those who are wondering: I have played SW: Rebellion and some mechanics are based on this PC game ...

... some things confuse me like invasions. If you get an invading force AND 8 invasion transports, how can one NOT win the roll?

I also think the negative effects for losing the invasion would need to be more severe (only limited number of assault troops? LR lowering throughout the sector?). If not, you risk having only these missions

How many people can realistically play in this game?

It seems to me that this is on a fairly high order of complexity and I suspect the degree of complexity and the realistic number of participants are inversely related.

Campaign length = battles

nbr of players/2

A lot depends of course on the size of the campaign map. But, let's say 7 planets. The defender has to defend a lot, so it will be the attacker that decides where battles are fought. Let's suppose that the rebel is the attacker and has the abiliy to make 4 attacks (scenarios) per campaign game turn. If we are just two, that would translate in 4 sessions per campaign turn.

[...]

I do not agree there: You need two (and I think only two) overall commanders responsible for the strategic turn. Results are the scenarios, and you can have as mamy players as number of scenarios per campaign turn times 2.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it answers the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking has a lot of unknown and unquantifiable variables to it, so it's more of a holistic question. Obviously, you could divide your player base into two teams (Empire and Rebels) and have two overarching commanders make the strategic-level decisions with other players playing out the specific battles. However, I wonder how many people would really want to play a grand game like that, in that way.

I guess it's more of an open question, and aimed more at Lyraeus and Beatty (should he join us), as they are members of my gaming community.

Do you guys think we could pull off a grand game like this with our Armada gaming community? I know Michelle's game, for something of this order, but what about the others?

How does this insure that games of Armada remain fun?

The problem with any campaign that allows for different sizes of fleets (which is realistic) also creates conditions for unbalanced match-ups. In many ways, the whole point of campaign strategy is to create conditions where you outnumber your opponent and secure victories that you can count on winning, regardless of the tactics used in an engagement. But our first meta-priority should be to make our games of Armada more fun by giving them stakes, rather than having Armada just be the resolution mechanism to a higher game.

Well, that I hope to have covered by the fleet assignement rules, where commanders can only command certain sizes of fleets...

Yes, I saw that aspect of it. So I take it you have more about this forthcoming. Color me interested in how you're going to work that out.