Star Wars™ Rebellion - The strategic use for Armada tactical campaigns?

By kippryon, in Star Wars: Armada

Posted at

Just saw this upcoming release https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/star-wars-rebellion/

Strategic use for Armada tactical campaigns?

Possible? Thoughts? Unknown...yet?

Just thinkin'...

You just game me an awesome idea for an epic (meaning super complicated but really in depth) combined campaign. It has capital ships, fighters, ground forces. Well, we have Armada for capital, X-wing for fighters, and Rebel Assault for ground. I can play EVERYTHING AT ONCE!! LOL

Edited by Salted Diamond
Posted at

NO!!!! NOT MY WALLET!

But this does seem like a pretty cool idea, imo.

Posted at

Difficult to say since we don't know a whole lot about Rebellion yet.

Using the Map and playing pieces for an integrated campaign is probably possible, but I doubt the actual Rebellion rules would be of much help, you'd need to design the campaign ruleset from scratch.

Its going to face the same problems this type of thing always have, how to structure the campaign so that the sub games are relevant to the overall campaign progress, make it feel like success in the sub games contributes to success in the campaign without creating a situation where the first player to gain an advantage just keeps getting a bigger advantage OR a situation where advantage in the campaign just endlessly see-saws back and forth with no real progress being made.

Check out this thread in the X-Wing board that is discussing similar issues.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/199183-pvp-campaign-metagame-theory/?hl=theory

One possibility that Rebellion seems to have "mission cards". Its difficult to say right now without the rules yet, but it looks like a lot of the driving force in the board game is based on sending your leaders on specific missions, many of which will probably involve combat. A campaign where the players choose various missions to go on, with each mission being a scenario to play in one of the sub games could work. Give the missions set power levels (or even set lists) so that each sub game is fair with a chance for either side to win, but have progress and relative advantage on campaign map govern which player gets to choose the mission and what option are available to choose from. That way, progress in the overall campaign has an impact on the sub-games but you don't end up with one player regularly attacking 1-2 CR-90s with 5 ISDs.

Actually, I think I've got some good ideas here. Think I'll cross post this in that other thread.

Posted at

Forgottenlore is quite right. If things are weighted to the tactical levels of war - be that Armada, X-Wing, or Imperial Assault - then there's the danger of an endless see-saw. If things are weighted too much to the strategic levels of war, then the tactical games will stop to be fun the less and less balanced they become.

I do like the sound of his solution, but I'm not sure that Rebellion, as it will be published, will have much that helps that - unless FFG has a specific plan to make it so, kind of like way back when when GW made Mighty Empires.

As there's a finite number of combat mission cards, we (the fan base) could come up with scenarios that correspond to the mission cards, as well as allow or restrict unique characters to those in the system in question. Those combat cards could correspond to any of the SW mini games.

Edited by Mikael Hasselstein