So, in thinking about a campaign system that determines the control of systems and hyperroutes, I want a strategic-choice mechanism that gives benefits and drawbacks to the attackers and/or defenders of a system, and also helps determine the choice of objectives to be played.

The idea is this: The attacker decides on a means of approach, while the defender decides on a defensive posture.

The attacker's choices are to 1)hyperspace into the outskirts of the system (like what Vader wanted done when the fleet arrived at Hoth), 2)to hyperspace close in to the system (like what Admiral Ozzel decided to do), or 3)to go for a staggered approach - not unlike the Hyperspace Assault objective. Meanwhile, the defender has the choice of 1)a defensive posture near the main planet of a system, 2)opting for wider sensor patrols to detect ships hyperspacing in on the outskirts, or 3)the preparing of an ambush.

Essentially, each side is given a choice between levels of risk/reward, with the combinations as shown in the table below. No objective means that it's just one fleet up against another, without any special rules or sources of victory points. Standard play is the game as we know it, and 50%/50% gives a significant edge to the attacker or the defender, and a random result will determine who gets it.

So, there are a number of RAW objectives that fit. For example. A Defensive Posture against a Close-In Assault could involve the Minefields objective, with the defender as 2nd player, as well as Prepare Ambush combined with the Staggered Approach, etc., such as what I've written below.

Objective examples:


The problem is that I'm not happy with it. I think the 'significant edge' should be a little bit more dire for 1st player, without which it completely determines the outcome of the game. After all, I do want tactical gameplay to be the most important part, rather than the strategic choices depicted in the table. So, I think that minefields, fleet ambush, and superior positions (as well as whatever happens under Close-In Assault-+-Wide Sensor Patrols) need to be strengthened just a little for 2nd player in a way that's plausible.

So, how might you all help me figure this out and fill it in, or even expand it?

I am wondering if this is indeed the route to go for a campaign game.

Advantages

• Players (should) know the objective types
• It is easy to implement, when fine-tuned

Disadvantages

• While you are making the effort to create a campaign, you are still using the <tournament-style> objectives. These are basically 'unnatural/gamey' and miss a premise and a goal.
• On top, the objectives are built on equal points in given battles. In campaigns, this will not always be the case.
• And, the objective-style play is limited to 6 turns, while a campaign does lend itself to flexible retreat rules. Important considiration in a scenario: when does the scenario goals are becoming less important than the preservation of my precious vessels (that you will need later on in the campaign) and the strategic situation?

But, I read your other thread and some of the objectives would do as 'scenarios'.

Disadvantages

• While you are making the effort to create a campaign, you are still using the <tournament-style> objectives. These are basically 'unnatural/gamey' and miss a premise and a goal.
• On top, the objectives are built on equal points in given battles. In campaigns, this will not always be the case.
• And, the objective-style play is limited to 6 turns, while a campaign does lend itself to flexible retreat rules. Important considiration in a scenario: when does the scenario goals are becoming less important than the preservation of my precious vessels (that you will need later on in the campaign) and the strategic situation?

I hear what you are saying. The RAW objectives are indeed what you say they are, but I wonder if they're not necessarily so.

As I wrote in your thread, I believe that the meta-objective of a campaign is to give stakes to games of Armada, rather than have Armada be a cumbersome resolution mechanism for a game that seeks to create unbalanced match-ups. As a simulationist, I would agree with making the strategic level the more exciting one, and the tactical level supportive, but I don't think Armada is the game to do that with.

So, I wonder if 'unnatural/gamey' isn't going to be baked into the cake to some degree.

That said, I do think that we could come up with stock scenarios that do a better job of simulating the event than the objective cards do.

I like your withdrawal mechanic for determining the outcome of a match, rather than the artificial 6-turn limit.

Stock scenarios are good when they can be used in multiple situations. For instance having a scenario where the Imperials attack but use an aestroid field to cover their approach, the Rebels are launching an Ambush and are using a majority of fighters deployed in the aestroid's for said ambush.

Another could be like that AMAZING animated SW short where the rebels are sneaking through a aestroid field and get caught by the Imperials stronger force (does not have to be unbalanced just limits rebels ship count and increase fighter count)

Stock scenarios are good when they can be used in multiple situations. For instance having a scenario where the Imperials attack but use an aestroid field to cover their approach, the Rebels are launching an Ambush and are using a majority of fighters deployed in the aestroid's for said ambush.

Agreed.

If we wanted to get really sophisticated, we could have different variations on stock scenarios. For example, in your asteroid scenario, there could be a variable number of asteroids/debris fields, or the sizes of them could vary. (Some could be large enough for a space slug to jump out and eat a squadron ).

The point of all this is to create an Armada gaming environment in which each game has a more-or-less unique situation. In X-Wing, the same six asteroids over and over again has really gotten tedious. Or, at least, it creates the 'unnatural/gamey' environment that TheVillageIdiot is talking about.

With variable scenarios, it becomes necessary for a commander to adapt to the situation at hand. I don't believe that every scenario needs to be perfectly balanced. In fact, as long as the scenarios keep the games sufficiently competitive, I don't think balance should be a huge concern at all. As long as it's fair in the long run.

Stock scenarios are good when they can be used in multiple situations. For instance having a scenario where the Imperials attack but use an aestroid field to cover their approach, the Rebels are launching an Ambush and are using a majority of fighters deployed in the aestroid's for said ambush.

Agreed.

If we wanted to get really sophisticated, we could have different variations on stock scenarios. For example, in your asteroid scenario, there could be a variable number of asteroids/debris fields, or the sizes of them could vary. (Some could be large enough for a space slug to jump out and eat a squadron ).

The point of all this is to create an Armada gaming environment in which each game has a more-or-less unique situation. In X-Wing, the same six asteroids over and over again has really gotten tedious. Or, at least, it creates the 'unnatural/gamey' environment that TheVillageIdiot is talking about.

With variable scenarios, it becomes necessary for a commander to adapt to the situation at hand. I don't believe that every scenario needs to be perfectly balanced. In fact, as long as the scenarios keep the games sufficiently competitive, I don't think balance should be a huge concern at all. As long as it's fair in the long run.

I like this idea, especially the feel of increasing the "stakes" for individual games. If someone with more time than myself wanted to incorporate points into it, that could make it valuable for competitive play but from a "fun" perspective, i like the idea of developing straight up "Stakes" cards.

"Stakes" alter the layout of the game and could play around with asymmetrical point costs, board layout, rounds, and victory conditions while providing a fluff reason for it. For example:

Wounded Titan

A Victory Star Destroyer was badly damaged in an asteroid field. A rebel strike force approaches to take out the threat before it can be reactivated.

Points

Empire - 180

1 Ship (VSD) and Squadrons

Rebels - 120

1 Small Base Ship and squadrons

Setup

VSD is placed beyond distance 5 of any edge. Ship starts the game at Speed 0 and can only make anti-squadron attacks. Asteroids/Debris cannot be placed within distance 2 of the VSD.

Rounds

Unlimited; After Round 4, VSD regains all shields, firing arcs, and picks a speed

Victory Condition

Rebels - VSD is destroyed

Imperial - All Rebel ships/squadrons destroyed

You could build a whole set of scenarios adjusting Points, Setup, Rounds, and Victory Conditions. It would provide a backstory to the present conflict, give each player a chance to try ships/squadrons they might otherwise avoid, and move away from the standard deathmatch-y style that tends to represent tournament play.

As long as you can keep the adjustments short enough to fit on a card-size, it could be an easy way to really expand the flavor of the game.

Simonsays3, I like it but it is very powerful for the rebels. 120 points of A-Wings could take that out

Simonsays3, I like it but it is very powerful for the rebels. 120 points of A-Wings could take that out

Agreed - playtesting and tweaking would definitely need to happen. This was just a "top of my head" idea. I was more hoping to showcase the format than anything else.

But since you brought it up

120 points of A-wings is certainly powerful (and real-money expensive) but the intent was that the "small-base ship" requirement would force the Rebel player to use an actual ship. That's a minimum of 59 points (including the commander), leaving you 60 points of squadrons = 5 A-wings? 4 X-wings?

Plus a VSD would likely utilize Motti, adding hull points, and giving you a cheap beat stick for 96 (72 + 24). That leaves 84 points to toss into squadrons. 96+80 points of generic ties is 176, leaving your CR90 and 5 A-wings to deal with 10 tie squadrons. That's a tall order and if you decide to just bump up your CR90 to a Neb-B, suddenly you've got very limited squadrons. Honestly, maybe the Empire's point total needs to be cut down instead.

Thoughts?

I think it's a neat scenario.

So, what would trigger this sort of scenario taking place? An earlier battle that roughly matched the conditions of a single VSD being left on the board?

On topic:

As I think about it, the more I'm agreeing with TheVillageIdiot's advice to move away from the objective cards and more towards custom stock scenarios that capture the situation described in the 9 boxes above. However, I am still puzzling over what those stock scenarios would be. I'm hoping to crowdsource for ideas here.

Let me repaste the top table here so that people don't have to scroll, and describe how I see these being interpreted:

And I'll number the boxes so:

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

Box 1

The idea here is that the defender has a defensive line, and any other preparation the defender might have made (such as minefields and the like) are detected early on by the attacker. The attacker will then have maneuvered so that the minefield will not impede the attack, and the playing field is level. Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Box 2

The attacker played it safe by entering the system in the outskirts, but the defender has an early warning of the attacker's arrival that the attacker does not anticipate. As a result, the defender has the choice to determine where the battle will take place: either in an asteroid belt or a minefield of the defender's choosing. The defender is allowed to choose between the Minefields and Dangerous Territory objectives. Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Box 3

The Defender, expecting an attack and expecting a certain entry vector from the attacker, miscalculated the attacker's chosen approach. As a result, the attacker can get a micro lightstpeed jump on the defender and appear on the defender's flank. As in Superior Positions, the defender sets up all his ships first, and then the attacker can set up on either of the 3' side edges of the 3'x6' Play Area, with a Deployment Zone that is distance 1–3 of her/his edge of the play area. Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Box 4

In this scenario (as well as in boxes 5 and 6), the attacker does not deploy all of their forces at once. The approach was inspired by the Hyperspace Assault objective, in which the attacker approaches with their main force, but a reserve force hyperspaces in at some time during the match. I was thinking that the attacker could also choose to do the opposite, and send in a smaller force to lure the enemy in, and then bring in the main force at a time of their choosing. I wrote up my thoughts on it here, titled Vanguard Attack. I think being second player in hyperspace assault constitutes a slight edge to the attacker. Without having play tested Vanguard Attack, I don't know how much of an edge it gives the attacker.

Defender is first player; Attacker is second player.

Box 5

Here the attacker staggers her approach, but the defender's sensors on the outskirts of the system are able to calculate the attacker's intents and nullify any advantages. Defender is first player; Attacker is second player.

Box 6

Here the attacker staggers into the system, but does so in just the way that the defender expects. So, I'm thinking that it creates the combination of hyperspace assault/vanguard attack and fleet ambush. The set up is just like Hyperspace Assault/Vanguard Assault (the attacker's choice of which), but that set up, including arrived ships and objective tokens have to be deployed within the zone specified under fleet ambush, where the text switches first and second player. So, the defender is first player, and the attacker is second player with their fleet and objective tokens set up within the ambush zone. That should be pretty painful, but still give the attacker a fighting chance.

Box 7

In this situation, the attacker hoped to make a surprise attack on the system, but the defender was prepared for them. The defender has a defensive line, as well as a minefield into which the attacker hyperspaces.

The attacker has to write down on a sheet of paper the measured locations and bearings of where the ships will hyperspace in within the attacker's deployment zone. This would be number of centimeters/inches from the attacker's edge to the aft portside (left) corner of the ship, as well as the the centimeters/inches from the attacker's left-hand edge to that same corner. Then the degrees (+/-) that the ship is facing from a right angle to the attacker's edge. The attacker also writes down the order in which the ships are to be deployed.

After this is written down, and not shown to the defender, the defender places any number (1-6) asteroids and/or debris fields, and 6 mines in the setup area, but no more than three of each in the attacker's deployment zone. Once the asteroids and mines are placed, the defender - who is designated first player - deploys all of their ships and squadrons.

One the defender has places all of their ships and squadrons, the attacker places their ships in the order and manner indicated on the sheet of paper. The attacker's immediately suffers damage as they would ending their maneuvers on the obstacles and mines in question according to the rules and the minefields objective card. Mines being triggered are removed after they take their effect.

Box 8

The attacker hyperspaced close in to the system, while a fifth of the defender's ships/squadrons were patrolling the system's outskirts. The defender has to leave out whole ships or squadrons totaling no less than 20% of their fleet point value. First/second player are determined by original point value as normal.

After ships and squadrons are deployed, the defender rolls a blue die. On a roll with a 'hit' result, the defenders patrol is due to arrive on Round 5, otherwise on round six. The defender places 3 objective tokens as per the rules on the Hyperspace Assault objective card, except that they are placed along the attacker's edge of the Play Area. At the start of each round after the first and including the round of the patrol's arrival, the defender can move each objective token to within distance 1 of its current position, along the attacker's edge of the Play Area.

Box 9

The attacker has chosen a daring approach, and the defender is prepared. However, miscalculation on one of their parts has messed up one of their plans. The attacker rolls a blue die. On a roll with a 'hit' result, the situation is as described in Box 3. Otherwise, the attacker chooses between Box 6 and Box 7.

I look forward to your feedback and incorporating suggestions.

Shameless thread and self-promotion bump, courtesy of HNN:

I will say that deciding who the 1st and 2nd player really changes some of the games mechainics

Okay, I want to take another crack at this, so that these can be used for a local campaign.

Every game, depending on which faction is determined to be the attacker or defender of a system (as given by the overarching campaign set-up). Both the attacker and the defender secretly chose one of three strategies. The combination of these strategies determines the battle conditions instead of the normal objective system, as described below.

Attacker Strategies:

Outskirts

As Vader's preference in the attack on Hoth, which Admiral Ozzel thwarted to Vader's 'displeasure', the fleet arrives in the outskirts of the system, far away from the significant planets and their expected sensor systems.

Staggered

The fleet brings a vanguard of ships in close, while having reserves nearby.

Close-in

In an attempt to surprise the system's defenders, the attacker's fleet leaves hyperspace close in near the significant planets of the system. The defender has to scramble in order to meet the attackers, unless the defender expected such a move...

Defender Strategies:

Defensive Posture

The defender expects the attacker to attack close in to the system, and the system's defenses and patrols are gathered close to the defender's most significant planet.

Wide Sensor Patrols

The defender does not expect the attacker to be as clumsy and stupid as Admiral Ozzel, and therefore has fighter patrols, sensor systems and other units scattered throughout the system in order to detect an attacking fleet that is attempting a stealthy approach.

Prepare Ambush

The defender, knowing the strategic layout of the system, has an idea where the attacker might strike. As such, the defender has prepared an ambush for when the attacker does arrive. Unless the attacker has a different plan, that is...

Resolution

Once the attacker and the defender have decided how they're going to order their postures, these orders are written on separate pieces of paper (or associated with Rock, Paper, or Scissors, or whatever), the two postures are compared, with the results being as follows:

Box 1 - Meet in the Middle

Context: The Attacker and the Defender have both taken the prudent approach. The attacking fleet hyperspaced into the outskirts of the system, while the Defenders are waiting them near the system's important planet. Both fleets have ample time to detect one another and maneuver in order to meet one another.

Determine Initiative: Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Setup: The defender/second player decides on a number between 1 and 5 of obstacles, excluding the station, to be deployed as normal.

Box 2 - Lure them Into the Mine/Asteroid Field

Context: The attacker played it safe by entering the system on the outskirts, but the defender had an early warning of the attacker's arrival that the attacker did not anticipate. As a result, the defender has the choice to determine where the battle will take place: either in an asteroid belt or a minefield of the defender's choosing.

Determine Initiative: Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Objective: The defender/second player is allowed to choose between the Minefields and Dangerous Territory objectives.

Box 3 - Jump into the Flank

Context: The defender, expecting an attack and expecting a certain entry vector from the attacker, miscalculated the attacker's chosen approach. As a result, the attacker made a micro lightspeed jump and appeared on the defender's flank.

Determine Initiative: Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Setup: As in Superior Positions, the defender sets up all his ships first, and then the attacker can set up on either of the 3' side edges of the 3'x6' Play Area, with a Deployment Zone that is distance 1–3 of her/his edge of the play area.

Box 4 - Vanguard Feint

Context: The attacker did not deploy all of their forces at once, but has a feinting force as a vanguard and a flanking force whose arrival has been purposefully delayed. A small vanguard is deployed to draw out the defenders, and once these are drawn out, the rear hyperspaces in and attacks the defender's forces.

Gather Components: Similar to the Hyperspace Assault objective, but before placing obstacles or deploying fleets, the attacker/second player sets one ship (of any size) and up to three squadrons apart from the remainder of the fleet. Unlike Hyperspace Assault, this is the vanguard that will be deployed first and attempt a feint.

Determine Initiative: Defender is first player; Attacker is second player.

Setup: After the defender/first player has taken two deployment turns (deployed either two ships or one ship and two squadrons), the attacker/second player deploys the vanguard in her deployment zone. The defender/first player then deploys the rest of his fleet. The attacker/second player then places 3 objective tokens in the play area beyond distance 3 of the first player's edge.

Special Rule: At the start of any round after the first round, the attacker/second player can deploy all or none of the ships and squadrons that were set aside at distance 1 of any objective token. Then remove all objective tokens. The ships can be deployed overlapping squadrons; the defender/first player places those squadrons as though the ship had overlapped them while executing a maneuver.

If the attacker/second player does not deploy, she may move each objective token to within distance 1 of its current position.

Box 5 - Premature Pincer

Context: Here the attacker staggered her approach, but the defender's sensors on the outskirts of the system were able to calculate the attacker's intents and nullify any advantages. In order to not be caught separated, the attacker brought the attempted pincer together prior to the battle.

Determine Initiative: Defender is first player; Attacker is second player.

Setup: The attacker/second player decides on a number between 1 and 5 of obstacles, excluding the station, to be deployed as normal.

Box 6 - Fleet Ambush 2.0

Context: The attacker staggered into the system, but did so in just the way that the defender expected, and therefore fell into the defender's ambush. The lead attacking ship's captain hastily gets on the comm to call in reinforcements before she is overwhelmed.

Gather Components: Similar to the Hyperspace Assault objective, but before placing obstacles or deploying fleets, the attacker/second player sets one ship (of any size) and up to three squadrons apart from the remainder of the fleet. Unlike Hyperspace Assault, this is the vanguard that will be deployed first and find itself ambushed.

Determine Initiative: Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Setup: Just like in Fleet Ambush, the portion of the setup area that is beyond distance 5 of any edge of the Setup Area is the Ambush Zone. Players mark the corners of the ambush zone with objective tokens, and then proceed to place 5 obstacles, excluding the station, starting with the attacker/first player.

The defender/second player takes two deployment turns (deploying either two ships or one ship and two squadrons), after which the attacker/first player deploys the vanguard in her deployment zone. The defender/second player then deploys the rest of his fleet. Finally, the attacker/second player then places 3 objective tokens anywhere in the play area beyond distance 5 of the first player's edge.

Special Rule: At the start of the second round, the attacker/second player deploys all of the ships and squadrons that were set aside at distance 1 of any single objective token. Then remove all objective tokens. The ships can be deployed overlapping squadrons; the defender/first player places those squadrons as though the ship had overlapped them while executing a maneuver. However, these ships must face the defender/first player's table edge (so that if the ships would fly straight, they would fly off the defender/first player's table edge. Also, the ships must all be at their highest. speed.

Box 7 - Hostile Entry

Context: The attacking fleet hoped to make a surprise attack on the system, but the defender was prepared for them. The defender has a defensive line, as well as a minefield into which the attacker hyperspaces.

Determine Initiative: Defender is first player; Attacker is second player.

Setup: The attacker writes down on a sheet of paper the measured locations and bearings of where the ships will hyperspace in within the attacker's deployment zone. This would be number of centimeters/inches from the attacker's edge to the aft portside (left) corner of the ship, as well as the the centimeters/inches from the attacker's left-hand edge to that same corner. Then the degrees (+/-) that the ship is facing from a right angle to the attacker's edge. The attacker also writes down the order in which the ships are to be deployed.

After this is written down, and not shown to the defender, the defender places any number (1-6) of obstacles and 6 mines in the setup area, but no more than three of each in the attacker's deployment zone. Once the asteroids and mines are placed, the defender/first player deploys all of their ships and squadrons in their deployment zone.

One the defender has placed all of her ships and squadrons, the attacker places his ships in the order and manner indicated on the sheet of paper. The attacker's ships immediately suffer damage as they would ending their maneuvers on the obstacles and mines in question according to the rules and the Minefields objective card. Triggered mines are removed after damage has been allocated.

Box 8 - Caught by Surprise

Context: The attacker hyperspaced close in to the system, while a fifth of the defender's ships/squadrons were patrolling the system's outskirts.

Gather Components: The defender must to leave out whole ships or squadrons totaling no less than 20% of their fleet point value.

Determine Initiative: Attacker is first player; Defender is second player.

Setup: After ships and squadrons are deployed, the defender/second player rolls a blue die. On a roll with a 'hit' result, the defender's patrol is due to arrive at the start of Round 5, otherwise at the start of Round 6. The defender places 3 objective tokens as per the rules on the Hyperspace Assault objective card, except that they are placed along the attacker's edge of the Play Area. At the start of each round after the first and including the round of the patrol's arrival, the defender can move each objective token to within distance 1 of its current position, along the attacker's edge of the Play Area.

Special Rule: At the start of the round determined above, the defender/second player deploys all of the ships and squadrons that were set aside at distance 1 of any or all of the objective tokens. Then remove all objective tokens. The ships can be deployed overlapping squadrons; the defender/first player places those squadrons as though the ship had overlapped them while executing a maneuver. However, these ships must face the defender/second player's table edge (so that if the ships would fly straight, they would fly off the defender/second player's table edge. Also, the ships must all be at their highest. speed.

Box 9 - Oops

The attacker has chosen a daring approach, and the defender is prepared. However, miscalculation on one of their parts has messed up their plans.

The attacker rolls a red die:

• On a roll with a 'hit' result, the situation is as described in Box 3.
• On a roll with a 'blank' result, the situation is as described in Box 6.
• On a roll with a 'crit' result, the situation is as described in Box 7.
• On a roll with a 'double hit' or 'accuracy' result, the situation is as described in Box 8.

Again, I look forward to your feedback and incorporating suggestions.

I will say that deciding who the 1st and 2nd player really changes some of the games mechainics

Indeed.

I think I have nailed that down more concretely in this latest version.

I like the idea very much, but do I understand right that essentially, initiative is determined by the chosen strategies only? This means both sides max out their points as best they can, right? Donnu if that's a problem, just wanted to point this out.

Btw, my first post in the Armada subforums

I like the idea very much, but do I understand right that essentially, initiative is determined by the chosen strategies only? This means both sides max out their points as best they can, right? Donnu if that's a problem, just wanted to point this out.

Btw, my first post in the Armada subforums

Yes, that is the implication. It isn't much of a problem for me.

Welcome to the Armada subforum, and thanks for digging out (necroing) my post. I've been thinking of resuscitating the idea as the competitive scene moves on (regionals still to come, but store championships nearly over). I want to do more imaginative play.

I like the idea very much, but do I understand right that essentially, initiative is determined by the chosen strategies only? This means both sides max out their points as best they can, right? Donnu if that's a problem, just wanted to point this out.

Btw, my first post in the Armada subforums

Yes, that is the implication. It isn't much of a problem for me.

Welcome to the Armada subforum, and thanks for digging out (necroing) my post. I've been thinking of resuscitating the idea as the competitive scene moves on (regionals still to come, but store championships nearly over). I want to do more imaginative play.

I like the strategy behind initiative, a game of rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock just does not sound like a fun way to go. Especially since some ships and builds can really rely in first player.

The main point of "Strategic" play a lot of people miss is that the players have to have the ability to logically parse choices and pros and cons. Too much information can seem like fun play because you pick whatever you want and it doesn't matter. But that's not actually strategic.

In a sense, most non-tournament winners I see cannot even actually parse normal Xwing information on a strategic scale: they can't do the math fast enough to even figure out what their best shot is.

I was just thinking about a 40K campaign the other night.

The way it worked was that the games were all random scenarios, but games in certain locations had different special rules (like a world with a toxic atmosphere, and one with high gravity, etc).

The campaign was conducted in seasons, with each season ending with a special scenario that everyone could join in.

After each game, players were awarded points. These points could either be added to their faction total, or their personal total. The player with the highest total got certain bonuses, and the team with the highest total was the winner. Winning a game also gave the winning player the chance to claim territory, with different areas of territory having different bonuses. I can't remember if the personal victory points total was just a bragging rights thing when we played, or it had an in-game effect, but I think I prefer an in-game effect. Something like, if your personal total is higher than your opponents, you may automatically select first or second player. Or you may re-roll one dice when attacking, or something.

Anyway, this meant that the strategic choices effectively boiled down to two things: 1 was how to spend your points if you won (give them to the team or keep them for yourself) and two was which territories to claim if you won.

The result of this was that all the games were more or less even (barring the inherent imbalance issued of 40K) which was really important since no one likes playing games where one side or the other starts with a strong advantage. Or rather, in games where one side starts with a strong advantage, it is important to balance the victory conditions so that each side still has a 50/50 shot at winning, because otherwise you're just punishing one player by making them sit through a 2 hour game that they have very little chance of winning. And if you are rewarding one player by giving them an edge in the coming battle, then that player will feel let down if the victory conditions are altered so that his edge disappears.

In my experience, people feel more involved and more likely to continue if the games are balanced. They don't need to be even points matches all the time, but the players need to feel like their objectives are always achievable.

The key is having territories that are worth things. Like some might be hyperspace routes that allow or block movement. Some might be important symbolic worlds, some might contain factories or resources, some might be exchange points where cargo is transferred from one fleet to another, some might be prison ships/stations, etc.

The other key factor we had in this campaign was the special scenarios at the end of each season. You could have multi-table scenarios where survivors from one battle can move off their table, and on to yours. You could have scenarios where one side has only squadrons, or where one side has all their ships starting 'docked' at speed zero and with no dials set for the first turn.

Then you can include extra victory points for doing certain things, like beating a player with a higher victory point total than yourself. Or destroying an enemy flagship, or things like that.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, that is the implication. It isn't much of a problem for me.

I have never liked the initiative part. Just could not put it into good words.

I like the strategy behind initiative, a game of rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock just does not sound like a fun way to go. Especially since some ships and builds can really rely in first player.

Hmm, if you're comparing this set-up to rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock, then I don't think you read it through very carefully. I can see where it might seem like rock-paper-scissors at first blush, but that underestimates this system, I think.

Also, yes, some builds really need to be first player, and those sorts of builds should be the sorts of builds that are meant for attacking rather than defending. In my system, the attacker can make a choice to always be first player (Outskirts).

The point-bidding system (to me) feels gamey; it doesn't put me in the shoes of a naval commander doing their part to win a war for the fate of the galaxy.

The main point of "Strategic" play a lot of people miss is that the players have to have the ability to logically parse choices and pros and cons. Too much information can seem like fun play because you pick whatever you want and it doesn't matter. But that's not actually strategic.

In a sense, most non-tournament winners I see cannot even actually parse normal Xwing information on a strategic scale: they can't do the math fast enough to even figure out what their best shot is.

Could you please explain what you mean here in the context of this discussion?

The result of this was that all the games were more or less even (barring the inherent imbalance issued of 40K) which was really important since no one likes playing games where one side or the other starts with a strong advantage.

[...]

In my experience, people feel more involved and more likely to continue if the games are balanced. They don't need to be even points matches all the time, but the players need to feel like their objectives are always achievable.

The key is having territories that are worth things. Like some might be hyperspace routes that allow or block movement. Some might be important symbolic worlds, some might contain factories or resources, some might be exchange points where cargo is transferred from one fleet to another, some might be prison ships/stations, etc.
[...]

A point of this system is to indeed give narrative stakes - in this case, control of a system.

Also, I don't think that this creates a system whereby one side is doomed from the start - even if they do get an extreme result (Boxes 3, 6, 7-9). If a player does get an extremely unfavorable result, then it's because that player chose a high-risk/high-reward option.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, that is the implication. It isn't much of a problem for me.

I have never liked the initiative part. Just could not put it into good words.

I like the strategy behind initiative, a game of rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock just does not sound like a fun way to go. Especially since some ships and builds can really rely in first player.

Hmm, if you're comparing this set-up to rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock, then I don't think you read it through very carefully. I can see where it might seem like rock-paper-scissors at first blush, but that underestimates this system, I think.

Also, yes, some builds really need to be first player, and those sorts of builds should be the sorts of builds that are meant for attacking rather than defending. In my system, the attacker can make a choice to always be first player (Outskirts).

The point-bidding system (to me) feels gamey; it doesn't put me in the shoes of a naval commander doing their part to win a war for the fate of the galaxy.

The main point of "Strategic" play a lot of people miss is that the players have to have the ability to logically parse choices and pros and cons. Too much information can seem like fun play because you pick whatever you want and it doesn't matter. But that's not actually strategic.

In a sense, most non-tournament winners I see cannot even actually parse normal Xwing information on a strategic scale: they can't do the math fast enough to even figure out what their best shot is.

Could you please explain what you mean here in the context of this discussion?

The result of this was that all the games were more or less even (barring the inherent imbalance issued of 40K) which was really important since no one likes playing games where one side or the other starts with a strong advantage.

[...]

In my experience, people feel more involved and more likely to continue if the games are balanced. They don't need to be even points matches all the time, but the players need to feel like their objectives are always achievable.

The key is having territories that are worth things. Like some might be hyperspace routes that allow or block movement. Some might be important symbolic worlds, some might contain factories or resources, some might be exchange points where cargo is transferred from one fleet to another, some might be prison ships/stations, etc.

[...]

A point of this system is to indeed give narrative stakes - in this case, control of a system.

Also, I don't think that this creates a system whereby one side is doomed from the start - even if they do get an extreme result (Boxes 3, 6, 7-9). If a player does get an extremely unfavorable result, then it's because that player chose a high-risk/high-reward option.

Granted, but they then have to sit through an unpleasant drubbing where they just take models off the board while their opponents roll dice. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth and actively harms player buy-in, at least in my experience. No one likes a one-sided game, so care should always be taken to make sure games are as balanced as possible, either through plain old points values, or by adjusting victory conditions.

Have you thought about experience and development? I was toying with a framework for an Armada campaign the other day, and I was thinking that each ship might start with no more than two upgrades, and could purchase more as the campaign progressed. And adding in a mechanic for disengaging, and that if titled ships were destroyed, that that title would be lost for the rest of the campaign. Demolisher loses a lot of it's punch if it can only die once in the whole campaign...

Right, so my objectives would have to be playtested to see how much the extreme results determine the outcome.

I have not yet given much thought to development. If there's too much weight on that, then not only the battles become unbalanced, but the entire campaign.

So the question is how to get the balance right so that the games and the campaign remain exciting, but don't lead to a continual stalemate.

So the question is how to get the balance right so that the games and the campaign remain exciting, but don't lead to a continual stalemate.

The conundrum at the core of every set of campaign rules!

So the question is how to get the balance right so that the games and the campaign remain exciting, but don't lead to a continual stalemate.

The conundrum at the core of every set of campaign rules!

Indeed.

Is that why campaign play is so rare?

So the question is how to get the balance right so that the games and the campaign remain exciting, but don't lead to a continual stalemate.

The conundrum at the core of every set of campaign rules!

Indeed.

Is that why campaign play is so rare?

It's certainly a part of it! Unfortunately there's even MORE problems to running a good campaign. It's hard to reward a player for winning, without starting a snow-ball effect where one side just crushes the other. It's hard to keep players (at least in my area) interested in just a single game for the time it takes to complete the campaign. It's hard to satisfy everyone's idea of what a campaign should include. And it's just hard to time it right! No point trying to get an Armada campaign up and running if the group is in a 40K mood, or vice versa. You've got to be able to strike when the iron is hot!