There seems to be increased interest recently in campaigns, due in no small part to the very successful and well-produced Aturi Cluster co-op campaign.

I’m working on a PvP campaign ruleset with my brother and some buddies, and I want to toss out some of my current ideas, and see what you guys think of them. Specifically, I want to see what you guys think of my current scheme for the campaign’s overall progression and conclusion, in terms of missions played.

BASES

Each player commands a squadron of ships (~370 points worth of ships), operating from a base in the region the campaign is taking place in. Players can pick their base type from a selection, and based on their choice, they will have different advantages if their base is ever attacked.

PICKING MISSIONS

The two competing factions alternate in choosing missions to play for the duration of the campaign. For example: Let’s pretend we have an Imperial vs. Rebel campaign with four players

Imperials get the first mission pick by winning a coin toss.

When the first game of the campaign is played, the Imperial player will pick what mission is played. In the second mission, the Rebel player will pick the mission, (and so on).

MISSION TYPE AND ACCESS

Missions are grouped into 5 basic categories. Players can spend Campaign Points (CP) to pick missions, and earn CPs from winning missions. Basic missions (mini or skirmish) are either free or cheap to pick, and offer a modest return. Mid-tier missions (raids) cost a few CPs to pick but offer a good return on investment with victory. Large-scale missions (assaults) cost many CPs, do not offer a good return, but players need to win a few missions at this scale to access the finale missions.

Mini: ~50 point games Cost:0CP Reward:1CP

Skirmish: ~100 points Cost:0CP Reward:2CP

Raid: ~150 points Cost:2CP Reward:5CP

Assault: 200+ points. 2 Assault missions must be won before a player can pick Finale missions. Cost:10CP Reward:3CP

Finale: 300+ points, mission success can defeat a player. Defenders have natural advantages. Cost:16CP Reward: Player defeated. Defenders may pick a Finale mission if they win a Finale.

Players only get Reward CP if they picked the mission. (Defenders don't get CP for winning).

CAMPAIGN VICTORY/DEFEAT
Defeated players can still play in the campaign, but won’t be able to play in any more Finale missions, and will have fewer ships available than normal. The campaign ends when all the players on one faction are defeated.

The idea with the mission setup is that players will naturally work towards the Finale missions, working their way through low-level missions to get enough points to play rarer large-scale missions that will eventually let them try to knock out another player. While some missions will offer rewards that will help your chances in the next mission or the finale, in general there is no economic momentum in the campaign.

This is intentional to prevent the accumulation of power by one player to the point where they are unstoppable and the campaign effectively ends before it technically ends. Ideally, players should have equitable chances of victory from mission to mission. There is an incentive for players to defeat each other as quickly as possible, so that they will not be knocked out themselves.

The mission progression system isn't the only thing going on in the campaign; there's also a robust pilot building/progression system and economy to manage throughout the campaign. But the overarching mission system in the campaign is both important and difficult to test, so I wanted to throw it out there.

Any thoughts? Does that sound reasonable and/or fun?

Thoughts:

- CP for victors no matter if Attacker or Defender for Mini or Skirmish (Allows building of CP in small bits if yo don't have a huge amount of ships)

There's a couple of things that aren't clear to me. If there's multiple players per faction, are the games separate 1-on-1 games, or are some or all of them team games? If they are separate, does each player have to win 2 assault missions on their own to pick a finale mission, or are those counted for the faction as a whole? Do players each have their own bank of CPs, or do the factions pool their points?

I like the overall structure of the missions, but I think the costs and rewards might need tweaking. As it is, a 1 vs. 1 campaign in which one faction wins every game would still take 27 games to finish. A less one-sided campaign could easily take 50 or more games. It's possible that's the length you're going for, but that seems a bit excessive.

Another issue I see is that the raids seem like a questionable risk. While they do give you a better reward than skirmishes, the net gain is only 1 CP higher. In addition, losing a skirmish as the attacker means nobody gained or lost anything, but losing a raid as the attacker means you're down 2 CP. I would either raise the reward for a successful raid, or do what mearn4d10 suggested and allow defenders to gain the reward of 0-cost mission types. That way, skirmishes have an added risk - they don't cost anything, but they could hand your opponent more CP if you lose. In addition, either of those solutions would shorten the length of the campaign.

One more thought: I like the "Defenders may pick a Finale mission if they win a Finale," rule, since it gives a trailing faction a chance to catch up, and moves the entire campaign into an endgame state. But one potential exploit is that one faction could ignore the assault missions and just keep banking points, waiting for the other faction to pick the finale mission. Then, if they can win on defense, they can start spending those CPs to launch their own finale missions, while the other faction is back to skirmishes and raids. It might be worth giving incentives to unlock the finale mission the hard way. For example, maybe those "natural advantages" for the defender that you mention could be more powerful if the attacker has won less than 2 assault missions.

I never did comment that I did like so far what you showed me. Sorry about that.

That sounds like a pretty interesting system, but I had something simpler in mind. More akin to Mordheim, with small and unobtrusive additions like a scenario table, an experience chart and an injury table. Perhaps some random encounter tables? I'll type something up soon...

I was thinking of the sort of thing where ace pilots were treated more like finite resources that had to be carefully groomed into flash in the pan heroes who last maybe a couple games at their peak before succumbing to multiple injuries. Then you start all over again with your next best pilot and see how it goes! You could use a ranking system so that as your squad grows and shrinks you aren't getting matched with people outside your play level. If your whole squad dies, well... Just make a new one...