So this is more for scenarios, anyone who just likes 100 v 100 you can stop reading now.

As is known, a big problem with objective based play is suicide run syndrome (SRS) whereas the objective is targeted excluding all over factors. It makes defense and escort missions a real nightmare. (I extensively playtested Babaganoosh' gamma base and this was a real thorn).

Now in a meta campaign losses to the attackers ships may be enough to make it not worth just suicide running but:

What about morale/leadership checks?

I mean there are many factors over if an enemy is willing to target a non-combative ship over a target.

If the target is of low importance, then why risk your life? If it's critical then sure.

Pilots conditioned to accept their death (Imperials) may get a bonus to this, rookies may get a penalty (PS 1-2 of everyone else).

So, factors: objective cost (say 1-4, 1 being escaped convict of a low level or smuggled minor goods, 4 being the death star plans).

Pilot training (willingness to accept death for the objective)

Are they in range 1-2 of either a big ship with an officer card, or a high PS - leader card?

Are they themselves a high PS pilot? Would they have the veteran quality of true grit to stay on target?

Pilot has to roll under a total amount on a D6, or the objective ship is the anti-biggs. (that is to say, if the player can target someone else - it has to!).

Thoughts?

Seems like you are making it too complicated.

How about....you cannot attack an objective if you could fire at an enemy ship that is closer.

Lets the defender control the defense of the target to an extent. But at the very least would make you think about the timing of your target runs.

Or: if the defender is closer you may not modify your dice in any way if you target the objective. (to simulate worrying more about the guns pointed at you)

You have a good thought process and problem identification, but your solution is too messy for me to even understand very well. Can you edit it?

Also, when I did my campaign, we had to add some really basic rules. With some severe editing and a little fluff sacrifice (just like how red dice =not lasers in this game) I got it down to 1 to 1.5 pages. And that was the best. Intuitive, simple and short. Not much added.

I think I understand what you want, but like Blail Berg said, your explanation is a bit messy.

If I follow correctly, you basically want a test to see if the given unit can do something other than the "obvious choice." If the mission is to kill a freighter, then your Academy Pilots are just gonna go kill the freighter. Baron Soontir Fel, on the other hand, is experienced enough to see that shooting at an escort might be more productive and effective.

In that case, then Pilot Skill seems like the obvious choice for a mechanism. Since it ranges from 0-9 right now, checking on a d10 seems like an obvious choice. If you want to add further wrinkles - things like proximity to higher PS ships, value of the target, etc. - then you can add adjustments to the die roll (d10+/-1 or more) as you deem necessary.

You have a good thought process and problem identification, but your solution is too messy for me to even understand very well. Can you edit it?

Also, when I did my campaign, we had to add some really basic rules. With some severe editing and a little fluff sacrifice (just like how red dice =not lasers in this game) I got it down to 1 to 1.5 pages. And that was the best. Intuitive, simple and short. Not much added.

Would you be willing to share your campaign rules?

Yeah that was kind of stream of conscious.

OK, so, we got a target, level 2 so rebel contraband, light weapons shipment.

Academy pilot Tim can target the transport, and a rookie pilot.

The question is what maths will be used to check against to see if the academy sticks to his guns and goes for the transport.

Example we take the target's importance (2 decided pre game) The fact he's imperial (+1) PS1 rookie (-1 Ps1-2 take a penalty, 3-5 are neutral, 5-9 get another +1) If he were within range of 1 Darth Vader (or anotherPS5-9 pilot) he could use their bonus instead.. So, in this case Tim needs to roll 3 or under on a D6 to see if he focuses rather than goes for the escort.

It looks complicated on paper, but it's basically the same sort of math that goes into shooting in infinity.

I think adding in more rules just muddies the waters more. I think designing scenarios that either limit or make suicide runs harder is a better option.

1) Give the defender points for each ship that is destroyed by the attacker and have the attacker have to retreat all ships to the exit point. This gives the chance for the Defender to kill enough attackers to make it a draw. Few attacks are worth it if the entire attacking force is destroyed at the same time. Pyrrhic Victory.

2) Give an objective to the Defenders to maybe kill a specific fighter. Perhaps this guy is hated and has a bounty. The Defender nominates one ship of the attacker, and if it's destroyed, then they get a sizable point increase. Combine it with 1 and you can lose the objective, but still win overall.

3) Have multiple objectives to destroy. I know this one is harder to do, but if there are maybe 3 objects to be destroyed it might be better. It makes it harder to do a quick alpha strike and have the game over in 3 turns. Or....have some sort of "gate" mechanism. Such as, you need to destroy the shield cupling devices to bring down the shields to THEN attack the target.

One thing we've done in the past to stop someone just leathering an objective in a suicide run is to use the little 'satellite' tokens as 'shield generators' and have them spaced out around it.

each working generator gives the objective an evade dice so its in your interest to shut them down before taking on the objective.

I like that idea, that makes more sense for a stationary objective.

I think the problem may simply be the binary objective.

You should be able to solve the problem simply by assigning the main objective a certain point value, but also giving secondary objectives a certain lesser value.

You may not succeed in destroying your primary target, but a raid could still be considered successful if it caused heavy losses to the enemy.

Strictly a fluff comment -

But (and this comment especially applies to Imperial attacking) - if you are dealing with a campaign / fluff would generally indicate that the Empire has no qualms about throwing nameless canon fodder at a problem to deal with things. They have, seemingly, almost unlimited supply of equipment and conscripts so why wouldn't you just throw everything you have at the target objective - getting home is irrelevant if you are in the Empire and you fail. You won't be going home anyway.....

Strictly a fluff comment -

But (and this comment especially applies to Imperial attacking) - if you are dealing with a campaign / fluff would generally indicate that the Empire has no qualms about throwing nameless canon fodder at a problem to deal with things. They have, seemingly, almost unlimited supply of equipment and conscripts so why wouldn't you just throw everything you have at the target objective - getting home is irrelevant if you are in the Empire and you fail. You won't be going home anyway.....

Hence the Imperial +1 on that test.

Scum would be able to apply a -1 on their "target" ship, tricking enemies into thinking it was less of a big deal than it really was.

Rebels... Considering a test reroll.