5 hours ago, Bakura83 said:

iirc we every ended on 450-550*. No one felt left behind. The other thing is, if you start at 400 and go from there, choosing to scrap your fleet to start fresh can leave you 100+ points behind your opponent. When we started at 200 we had a rule that you started a new fleet at the average fleet total or 400pts, which ever was less. That meant that the newer players could afford to completely drool their entire fleet all the way up to the final 3rd of the campaign and still have a fighting chance.

Just FYI - we played over 3 days, I’ve never done a campaign as a once a week/fortnight/month thing.

*We didn’t have a limit on how fleets grew. If you got the points, you could spend them.

Edit:

We are considering using Siege of the Arkanis Sector for our next one, or perhaps borrowing some elements like no scarring, just either jump out or your ship is gone forever. (You can use the model again, but any unique upgrades like a title it had are toast).

We are also toying with the idea of no unique squadrons alllowed until you have gotten a generic squadron to actually kill something AND survive a battle.

Finally, we are big fans of Holdfast Pacific/Atlantic, a WW2 naval game that has a really cool turn reinforcement mechanic where you get specific ships each turn (as they were irl built as the war progressed), and you can repair damaged ships but once they are gone they are gone, so you really have to choose how and when to send in your best ships.

I would love to find a way to implement this in Armada, for example I own 3 ISDs total, my friend owns two more, limit the Imperials to only 5 IsD’s Ever between 3 people, stagger when they become available, and suddenly there is a whole new resource management/grand admiral strategy level to your Corellian Campaign.

Cool, I like the idea for starting a new fleet. Also the unique squadron thing, thats interesting.

On 11/5/2018 at 1:21 PM, Bakura83 said:

iirc we every ended on 450-550*. No one felt left behind. The other thing is, if you start at 400 and go from there, choosing to scrap your fleet to start fresh can leave you 100+ points behind your opponent. When we started at 200 we had a rule that you started a new fleet at the average fleet total or 400pts, which ever was less. That meant that the newer players could afford to completely drool their entire fleet all the way up to the final 3rd of the campaign and still have a fighting chance.

Just FYI - we played over 3 days, I’ve never done a campaign as a once a week/fortnight/month thing.

*We didn’t have a limit on how fleets grew. If you got the points, you could spend them.

Edit:

We are considering using Siege of the Arkanis Sector for our next one, or perhaps borrowing some elements like no scarring, just either jump out or your ship is gone forever. (You can use the model again, but any unique upgrades like a title it had are toast).

We are also toying with the idea of no unique squadrons alllowed until you have gotten a generic squadron to actually kill something AND survive a battle.

Finally, we are big fans of Holdfast Pacific/Atlantic, a WW2 naval game that has a really cool turn reinforcement mechanic where you get specific ships each turn (as they were irl built as the war progressed), and you can repair damaged ships but once they are gone they are gone, so you really have to choose how and when to send in your best ships. 

I would love to find a way to implement this in Armada, for example I own 3 ISDs total, my friend owns two more, limit the Imperials to only 5 IsD’s Ever between 3 people, stagger when they become available, and suddenly there is a whole new resource management/grand admiral strategy level to your Corellian Campaign.

I really want to hear about Holdfast. And more on how the 200->550 fleets grew. FFG games are really low on fleet building and personal progression feeling.

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

I really want to hear about Holdfast. And more on how the 200->550 fleets grew. FFG games are really low on fleet building and personal progression feeling.

Honestly I didn’t keep detailed records (foolish mistake) I just remember that no one snowballed.

Hold fast is great. If you look at the picture you’ll see a chart inside the box lid, basically each ship is a little one-sided block of wood with the stats of each ship on it, and obviously each ship is a unique name on its block and comes in between turn 2 and 8 based on when it was historically launched or reached the Pacific theatre.

So in other words you know how many ships are in each enemy fleet, but not what they are - they are just “blips on the radar” until you actually engage. Another excellent mechanic is that each player has little blocks of wood the represent an entire task force, so you can see how many ships are in each task force but you have no idea which blocks are task forces, so you can attack a 2-block fleet and suddenly realise that one of those blocks is a task force of 8 ships!

Obviously the historical aspect is void for Star Wars, but I really like the idea of knowing that across the campaign you will only have a total of 5 ISD hulls coming (for example) which 3 players have to share, which will arrive in instalments. It would add an awesome strategic element to an already tactically excellent game. Obviously it would need balancing.

On 11/8/2018 at 4:56 AM, Bakura83 said:

Honestly I didn’t keep detailed records (foolish mistake) I just remember that no one snowballed.

Hold fast is great. If you look at the picture you’ll see a chart inside the box lid, basically each ship is a little one-sided block of wood with the stats of each ship on it, and obviously each ship is a unique name on its block and comes in between turn 2 and 8 based on when it was historically launched or reached the Pacific theatre.

So in other words you know how many ships are in each enemy fleet, but not what they are - they are just “blips on the radar” until you actually engage. Another excellent mechanic is that each player has little blocks of wood the represent an entire task force, so you can see how many ships are in each task force but you have no idea which blocks are task forces, so you can attack a 2-block fleet and suddenly realise that one of those blocks is a task force of 8 ships!

Obviously the historical aspect is void for Star Wars, but I really like the idea of knowing that across the campaign you will only have a total of 5 ISD hulls coming (for example) which 3 players have to share, which will arrive in instalments. It would add an awesome strategic element to an already tactically excellent game. Obviously it would need balancing.

Huh wanted to look into this more for developing more campaign style play

16 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Huh wanted to look into this more for developing more campaign style play

I’m still working on the project, I actually worked on some of the components today. We won’t be playing until August so there is still time to play around with ideas.

We are going to be combining it with x-wing to include some x-wing players, more in that later.

Just getting back into Armada after an 18+ month long haitus (long story). I started with this format just to ease back into things and had a blast. I have two copies of everything in wave 1, a single copy of wave 2, and a smattering of later ships (MC-30 and Arquittens). I've been able to recreate a few of the fleets posted in this thread, or a close enough approximation, and have had a blast.

I've even created some of my own fleets (see below) and had some fun. I'm still figuring out which objectives make sense with which fleets and would appreciate feedback/help.

It's a great way to try out new commanders and strategies without a big time investment.

I too am interested in learning more about Holdfast. I've found a few things, but nothing like a clear comprehensive review like I have seen for other games.

I'm always down for ways to add longevity to Armada games. One idea I saw on these forums was starting with generic ships and fighters, and only allowing aces/titles if they survive.

Not sure how to really implement this (I really should probably just buy CC) with my limited fleet but am open to ideas.

Name: No one flies VSD anymore? What?
Faction: Imperial
Commander: Admiral Screed

Assault: Advanced Gunnery
Defense: Contested Outpost
Navigation: Minefields

Victory I (73)
• Admiral Screed (26)
• XX-9 Turbolasers (5)
= 104 Points

Raider I (44)
• Assault Proton Torpedoes (5)
= 49 Points

Squadrons:
• Darth Vader (21)
• Major Rhymer (16)
• TIE Fighter Squadron (8)
= 45 Points

Total Points: 198

Name: Ackbar AF
Faction: Rebel
Commander: Admiral Ackbar

Assault: Most Wanted
Defense: Fire Lanes
Navigation: Minefields

Assault Frigate Mk2 A (81)
• Admiral Ackbar (38)
• Enhanced Armament (10)
= 129 Points

CR90 Corvette A (44)
• Turbolaser Reroute Circuits (7)
= 51 Points

Squadrons:
• Luke Skywalker (20)
= 20 Points

Total Points: 200

Glad you got your test and introduction mileage @FortyInRed ! Isn’t it so easy to get started playing??

Yeah this is pretty easy to adapt for campaigns that add points. You may need some sort of anti snowball limitation though. As is the case with all campaigns.

Hi all,

Two thoughts regarding this format that I'd like your feedback on:

1.) A potential solution to the "Large Ship Problem

- This format largely works because you take a well-balanced format and just divide most things in half. Generally speaking this works but scoring is hard because you get all or none of the points you destroy. A Motti ISD is really hard to destroy with 200 pts so the game is biased towards tanky ships right now.

- what if we just add the "half rule" to scoring for all ships, as was proposed for large ships only earlier in this thread?

- Scoring: you half the points, rounded up, for every ship that has received half as many damage cards as it's hull value, rounded up. For example a ship with 4 hull will be scored if it has 2 damage cards, while a ship with 5 hull requires 3 damage cards to score.

2.) A potential way to add a "strategic" aspect to this format. Players battle over a larger map for control of sectors.

- What if we start with a really simple 7-cell hex grid? Each sector in the grid is adjacent to at least two others, meaning it is hard to box someone in.

- Sectors are named with a letter, A, B or C denoting their row, and a number denoting their position from left to right.

- so the layout is

- A1 A2

B1 B2 B3

C1 C2

- players start with 100 pts of generic ships and fighters, no upgrades, with one player starting in B1 and the other in B3. The first player to reach 300 victory points wins.

- players will take turns consisting of three phases: 1.) Attack / Defend 2.) Building 3.) Reinforcement

- attack / defend - each player may declare one sector adjacent to a sector containing their units to "attack". Only sectors containing enemy units or no units may be attacked. The other player may elect to yield an unoccupied sector, retreat from an occupied sector to an adjacent friendly sector, or defend with the units present in sector. When retreating, the defending player may elect 5 movement points' worth of units to withdraw to a nearby friendly sector. See "Reinforcement" below for rules on movement between sectors. All remaining units are considered destroyed and the point value of those units are given to the opposing player as victory points. Attacks are resolved using a "Taskforce Format" battle with the defender picking the objective. If neither player had units in the sector previously, pick an objective randomly, following "Taskforce Format" modifications. Each ship that scores a kill on another ship, or squadron that kills another squadron or ship, receives an objective token. If the ship or squadron remains undestroyed at the end of the battle, it is eligible for promotion during the next "Building" phase. Scoring: Each player scores as many victory points as units destroyed. For ships, award half the total points of a ship that received half as many damage cards as it's hull value, rounding up. For example, you score half the total cost in victory points of a ship with 5 hull points if it has 3 or more damage cards. For a ship with 6 hull points, it needs at least 3 damage cards to be scored. Follow normal "Taskforce Format" modifications to objective rules and points values. Attacker must destroy all defending units to claim control of the sector, winning is not sufficient to claim a sector.

- Building - each player is awarded 50 points for the first sector they control, and 25 points for each additional sectors they control. Players may use these points to purchase additional ships (no upgrades or titles), generic squadrons, or to "promote" a ship or squadron that received an objective token previously. Promotions can executed be swapping a generic fighter for an ace card, adding a title card for a ship, assigning a fleet commander or adding a single eligible upgrade to a ship. The cost of the promotion must be paid immediately from build points currently available to the player. Any build points not spent are discarded. Once a ship has been promoted, remove the objective token, otherwise leave it for later rounds. All ships start at the the starting locations (B1 or B3) or if that is not possible, in the sector containing the smallest friendly fleet.

- Reinforcement - each player is allocation 10 "movement" points. A single movement point allows a single squadron or command-1 ship to be moved to one adjacent sector containing friendly units. You may not move into a neutral sector or one containing enemy units in this phase. A command-2 ship requires 2 movement points, command-3 requires 3 movement points. Etc

4 hours ago, FortyInRed said:

1.) A potential solution to the "Large Ship Problem

- This format largely works because you take a well-balanced format and just divide most things in half. Generally speaking this works but scoring is hard because you get all or none of the points you destroy. A Motti ISD is really hard to destroy with 200 pts so the game is biased towards tanky ships right now.

- what if we just add the "half rule" to scoring for all ships, as was proposed for large ships only earlier in this thread?

I've been meaning to post this for a long time, but didn't want to push it cuz it would be an extra rule. But I think its really necessary.

Can I put the call out to you all lovely play-users to collect me some data? I want 25 or so games of varying match ups. I note that for instance, Yavaris + Transport + multi-role bombers has a really hard time vs Motti ISD + Firesprays.

I think a half point rule for larges is pretty much required nowadays.

4 hours ago, FortyInRed said:

2.) A potential way to add a "strategic" aspect to this format. Players battle over a larger map for control of sectors.

This sounds cool but really complicated. Can you explain more?

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

This sounds cool but really complicated. Can you explain more? 

Sure, I can try at least!

What I'm going for is some way for Armada games to have influence and meaning beyond a series of unrelated games. Similar to how Risk Legacy works, after each game, the game parameters would change as a direct result of players' actions. Ships that were successful in previous battles would be rewarded. Sectors that were conquered/occupied can allow you to field a larger fleet. I haven't played CC, but I imagine it might be similar in concept.

The specifics of how this gets implemented could vary, the main points i was trying to convey was:

• A structure through which individual games of Armada could be linked together into a larger game
• A mechanism through which units (ships and squadrons) would gain veterancy through their actions in previous games. A ship that destroys another, and lives to tell the story, gets rewarded with a title, upgrade, or commander. Similar for a fighter squadron. The background for this would be that perhaps this was this hotshot pilot called "Howlrunner" who to date hasn't done anything, but after a battle for <X> sector, she revealed her talents.
• A way to force players to make difficult decisions when fleet building. This isn't always a "build the biggest and best fleet you can with unlimited time to plan", but rather a "do the best you can with the options you have available"

I think Task Force is a good way to resolve conflicts/battles over a sector because the game are usually faster. So in a few hours, you could conceivably complete several inter-related games of Task Force, each time feeling like your actions have meaning beyond just that one isolated battle.

Does that help answer what I was going after, or did you have questions on specific implementations?

Note that I haven't tried this yet, and currently don't have any other players to play with (so I play both sides).

4 hours ago, FortyInRed said:

Sure, I can try at least!

What I'm going for is some way for Armada games to have influence and meaning beyond a series of unrelated games. Similar to how Risk Legacy works, after each game, the game parameters would change as a direct result of players' actions. Ships that were successful in previous battles would be rewarded. Sectors that were conquered/occupied can allow you to field a larger fleet. I haven't played CC, but I imagine it might be similar in concept.

The specifics of how this gets implemented could vary, the main points i was trying to convey was:

• A structure through which individual games of Armada could be linked together into a larger game
• A mechanism through which units (ships and squadrons) would gain veterancy through their actions in previous games. A ship that destroys another, and lives to tell the story, gets rewarded with a title, upgrade, or commander. Similar for a fighter squadron. The background for this would be that perhaps this was this hotshot pilot called "Howlrunner" who to date hasn't done anything, but after a battle for <X> sector, she revealed her talents.
• A way to force players to make difficult decisions when fleet building. This isn't always a "build the biggest and best fleet you can with unlimited time to plan", but rather a "do the best you can with the options you have available"

I think Task Force is a good way to resolve conflicts/battles over a sector because the game are usually faster. So in a few hours, you could conceivably complete several inter-related games of Task Force, each time feeling like your actions have meaning beyond just that one isolated battle.

Does that help answer what I was going after, or did you have questions on specific implementations?

Note that I haven't tried this yet, and currently don't have any other players to play with (so I play both sides).

Yes, that's great. But the main question is just making your idea easier to understand. Its a difficult idea. What's good about this set up?

One of the features of Taskforce is ease to learn. There's only a few minor added rules. But generally, everything works like: Keep the larger half.

I think it's interesting at this point to develop some sort of generic campaign system that 1. doesn't snowball, 2. Can fit in 1-1.5 pages at most. including pretty much all required rule clarifications.

I don't want to steal anyone's thunder here, so if this idea should go elsewhere that's fine. I always like the story and narrative in games, which is lacking in many games of Armada. Why are you firing at certain targets? Who owns that outpost you are contesting? Why are those mines there?

I find myself drawn to scenario-based matches, like those guys who recreated Scarif complete with Death Star and uploading plans.

What I'm going for here is a story behind how Defiance earns it's name. Or where Rhymer sets himself apart from other bomber pilots. By forcing you to "earn" titles, upgrades, and commanders you can incorporate a story.

What I like about Task Force is that it's a quick enough game that I can tell one or maybe even two chapters of this story in an afternoon.

Does that help explain what I'm after?

I'm not set on a particular group of rules. What I posted above was just what I came up with one day while cleaning the house.

I'm proposing a balance rule discussion based on table game data:

Chiming:

@FortyInRed @NightAngel47 @ShoutingMan @Norsehound

Note: Please discuss the balance rule idea mostly in that other thread.

Not read the entiee post but plan to do so.

Is the commander obligation really give a positive input.

Or the absence of one judged too bad?

2 hours ago, AdmiralOldOwlz said:

Not read the entiee post but plan to do so.

Is the commander obligation really give a positive input.

Or the absence of one judged too bad?

Its been very good for learning how to build lists, how to effectively use a commander, and increases variation of gameplay strategies (less ship spam for instance). So, to answer your question, it seems like its been very positive.

Try it!

Read until page 4.

Organising a CC with a 200/250 points task force format.

With the seasonal league kit, it should play wonderfully.

Just now, AdmiralOldOwlz said:

Read until page 4.

Organising a CC with a 200/250 points task force format.

With the seasonal league kit, it should play wonderfully.

Please tell us how it went!

First game scheduled 12 April, 18h00.

Will take pic on each round and share it.

We got our first game last friday finally.

Me

The D*ick Fleet (TF format/CCampaign initial round)
Author: AdmiralOldOwlz

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 200/200

Commander: Admiral Motti

Assault Objective: Station Assault
Defense Objective: Fire Lanes
Navigation Objective: Salvage Run

[ flagship ] Interdictor-class Suppression Refit (90 points)
- Admiral Motti ( 24 points)
- G7-X Grav Well Projector ( 2 points)
= 116 total ship cost

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)
= 23 total ship cost

1 Lambda-class Shuttle ( 15 points)
2 YV-666s ( 30 points)
1 Aggressor Assault Fighter ( 16 points)
= 61 total squadron cost

My opponent was playing

Sato CCampaign initial round.
Author: AdmiralOldOwlz

Faction: Rebel Alliance
Points: 200/200

Commander: Commander Sato

Assault Objective: Custom Objective
Defense Objective: Custom Objective
Navigation Objective: Custom Objective

[ flagship ] Modified Pelta-class Assault Ship (56 points)
- Commander Sato ( 32 points)
- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)
= 93 total ship cost

Nebulon-B Support Refit (51 points)
- Salvation ( 7 points)
= 58 total ship cost

1 Tycho Celchu ( 16 points)
1 Han Solo ( 26 points)
1 Z-95 Headhunter Squadron ( 7 points)
= 49 total squadron cost

First off, my fleet is a one time surprise that will undoubtedly work well ... one time.

Second my opponent was pissed off by a recent major defeat on salvage run, and did not want to take the time to destroy station plus an interdictor, so he went blindlessly into Fire lanes.

Only Tycho and Salvation survived.

I deployed my grav token on the largest way possible and he deploy in it.

First round, i slowed to speed 0. My lambda securing closer the furthest objective token.

He banked a CF token.

Round2-5 he closed in. Token completly secured. Lambda damaged but unengaged due to being on the station. The rogues on my side rolled tremendously only Tycho survived.

Round 6, Black thunder on the dictor but he repaired easily and double-arc then ram the Pelta. The rogues and lambda collecting 3 last hit on the amiral ship...

As said before, it will surely not work that well a second time. But fastest game ever.

After three round, we come up with some conclusion.

We've nerfed all the base defense like indicated in the TF Format pdf.
20 generic squadron instead of 40.
8 HP instead of 13 for the armed station.
2 token instead of 3 in Ion Canon.

Still, after 2 turn of rebels trying to reach Corellia, defended by the D*ck Fleet described just up there, we've come to an obvious conclusion.

2Red,2 Blue for the station & 4 Blue from the Ion Canon are way too much powerfull in 200-ish-to-250.

I've been using Ion Canon two round from now. The amiral ship of the two fleet i've battled against, Foresight & Admonition, were badly damaged until arrival to the real actual fight.
I've been deploying the Grav well so not a single small could deploy in the left side without being speed 0. Si my opponents deploy in a thin zone right side. at the exact opposed end of the map from my own deployment. They doply full speed, and me, speed 1, then 0, waiting fror them. The two ion canon token was set following the possible trajectory leading them to me. Lambda, covered by the YV-666 and the Agressor adjusting in need.

First case : Lucky shot, 2 turn of accuracy and 3 damage get rid of a GR75. Then 3 turn of shooting into the MC30, the beast got one shoot against my ship before being destroy by 2 shot from the Dictor.
Second Case : Instead of futilely trying to avoid the "moving" Ion Canon objectives token, the MC30 fly in straight line to the Dictor. My placement in the corner, waiting there, force my opponent to avoid being drive out of the map, or loosing a Motti-Dictor-Egineering bastard ramming fest. So manoeuvering and slowing... 5 round of Ion canon. Once in place, the MC30 two-shot my Gozanti, and being destroyed by only one shoot from the interdictor. My opponent was table, loosing squads over mine and the CR90 didn't resist 4 Rogues, one interdictor and one last ion canon shot.

So it was a two possible sided game : Starting speed 0, loosing precious time to try destroying my Interdictor-Motti, loosing as first player and no ship killed. Or Full speed across the map into a "in the corner" Dual ship.
The two version still cannot avoid the Ion Canon...

So we'll be trying a 3 dice armament in thoses two objectives, in the next round of our campaign. But we're not sure it will be "better advantage for the second player than the normal objectives but still playable in a TF format". Any tought?

PS: Who said the Interdictor was not competitive in TF format?

47 minutes ago, AdmiralOldOwlz said:

5 round of Ion canon.

Sorry, your text is hard to read. Do you mean 5 rounds of attacks from "Planetry Ion Cannon" Objective? How could that possibly happen? You have to discard the objective token before you role the attack dice. You could never attack more than 3 times due to "PIC".

Base Defense : Ion Canon*

Sorry my english is pretty bad, i'll try Google translate from french next time.

The Base Defense Objectives are not balanced. They are meant to give the second player a huge advantage while defending a planet. The only way to win when attacking a planet is to bring a fleet that got an advantage in points or other strategical advantages (like veteran units, strategical tokens). If you play Base Defense Objectives with two (nearly) equally developed fleets the defender will (almost) always succeed.

On 5/27/2019 at 4:50 AM, Triangular said:

The Base Defense Objectives are not balanced. They are meant to give the second player a huge advantage while defending a planet. The only way to win when attacking a p  lanet is to bring a fleet that got an advantage in p  oints or other strategical advanta  ges (like veteran units, strategical  t   okens   )  . If yo  u play Base Defense  Ob  j  ectives w  ith  two  (ne  arly) equally d  eveloped fleets the defen  der will (alm  ost) always  succeed. 

Chiming in, I was the player flying Admonition vs Base Defense PIC (and I flew against Armed Station the next game).

I haven't played a 400pt CC campaign, so maybe my opinion on this is misguided. However, keeping in mind that base defense objectives are balanced to give a sizeable advantage to the 2nd player, I felt that in order to keep a similar level of balance to the 400 point game, removing a token wasn't really going to cut it. A single shot from a PIC token is disproportionately powerful against a 200-point fleet, as over 4-5 turns, it can more or less single-handedly destroy half the attacker's fleet. While Admonition isn't necessarily the most resilient ship in the game, it's no pushover and Mothma Foresight is very well suited to countering PIC... yet it got demolished.

Now, to be entirely fair, we only have 2 data points and I'd very much like to go against this fleet/objective again. I don't really see how I could have flown it so much better that it would have made a difference, but 2 data points isn't enough to make a call on balance, though I'm leaning towards reducing the number of dice at this point.

The other potential problem with Taskforce CC is how starved one is for points. I haven't spent too much time thinking about it and as I said, I haven't played the 400 points game, but in TF CC, it's more or less impossible to add or replace a ship, so as soon as you lose anything else than a squad or flotilla, you pretty much have to retire the fleet. At 30-ish points (+ refit) per game, you're not repairing all that much and you're certainly not replacing anything anytime soon.

3 hours ago, CptAwesomer said:

I don't really see how I could have flown it so much better that it would have made a difference

I'm sure that's right! You need a huge advantage on your side, when you attack an enemies base. The failure was to attack during round 1 without any advantages. You should try to get some neutral systems first and only attack a base when your opponent has had some major problems the last round(s), like being tabled.

And I can imagine, that this base defense objectives works better with only 3 blue dice per attack. You can try that, when your opponent attacks your base! 😁

And I can imagine, that it's a problem to make advancements in fleet building, when you play with half the points. With 400-500 FP we never had enough points to buy a large ship for 100 FP. Halfed points mean, that 50 FP (nearly every ship) is almost unavailable. You can only buy ships and squadrons for 200 FP and during the game upgrades for 50 FP. Sounds not veeery exciting.

Let's face it: CC is crap when played with 400 FP and it seems worse with 200 FP.
(Oh, man, please let "Rebellion in the Rim" be a better campaign!)