Sure, I could write my own using the nifty map they're about to sell me in 2016...but it might be nice if the pro's did it ...

v/r

feld

.... no...

Not sure what you mean. Is that "no they're not planning to do so"

"no I dont want them to do so" and/or some other response?

R/feld

I would have to say 99.999999999% chance of them not integrating armada into Rebellion, it is its own game. That said there is nothing stopping you or anyone else for making rules to include Armada.

Not sure what you mean. Is that "no they're not planning to do so"

"no I dont want them to do so" and/or some other response?

R/feld

Both.

Do you know how long that game would take? Days, if not weeks. And while I'm all about playing an epic scale game that utilizes Armada and Imperial Assault to determine smaller battles in a galactic setting, it can't make financial sense for FFA to create such a game. I wrote up some rules to play Star Wars Risk - Original Trilogy Edition using IA and Armada, but I'll probably never have the opportunity to play it. You know, kids and all...

There are some really cool epic campaign rules being thrown around on the Armada boards. If nothing else you could use the map as a basis for a campaign that would be decided by Armada battles over the course of a tournament, a few nights of gaming, etc.

But we really need is a MMORPG war game with fighters and capital ships. That would be pretty neat. One can only hope that Disney/Lucasarts at least creates a new Xwing/Tie Fighter game.

Epic games like that end up being complete drags. Takes to long to accomplish something simple.

Yup, not gonna happen. Such a thing will require eons of testing, new rules to be created and that must be kept into consideration the more Armada expands and in the end will result in a even longer game that in the end will be played only by few people. So, a ton of extra work for no profit on their side (while testing, and all the rest has important costs because even if the production costs for this are zero, you still have to pay the time of the people working on this. And it's not like "well, it's 1 or 2K bucks, FFG should be able to blow such money; it's the "I use this developer to work on this, putting all the other things the same developer could do on hold"). Not gonna happen.

would be always...but not very feasible...

I have a passion for modeling different levels of war, so my impulse - like the OP - is to really desire something like an integration.

But, I think the practical side tells us that it can't realistically be done in a format that sells stuff for FFG.

Knott06 is right - if you want a multi-level experience, you're going to have to design it mostly yourself, and there's plenty of inspiration to be had here and there on this forum and elsewhere. More importantly is that you're going to have to gather the players that will have an interest in playing a game like that. That's the really hard part, right there.

I'm certainly not saying that it can't be done. In a way, I'm doing it unilaterally. I play games (X-Wing, Armada, and - occasionally - Imperial Assault), and then I record the wins losses and see what effect they have on my campaign. In time, I think the story will gather more people's interest, and then something can come of it.

The important aspect of it all is that the higher-level games need to provide the narrative stakes for the lower-level games. Because the lower-level games take up a lot more time, and they're not fun when they're fundamentally unbalanced. However, if there is an accurate high-level game, then the strategists on that level will attempt to only go to conflict when there's a fundamentally unbalanced match-up at the lower level. That doesn't make the lower level any fun, which is ultimately the purpose of the game.