So from I understand the basic idea of playing 1 single faction with 2 players is that 1 player gets all the (blue) admiral heroes and the other player gets all the (yellow) general heroes. However the biggest problem I think with this is that the ground units can't move without the ships carrying them. So the general player would need to take the admiral player's units, just to move his stuff.

So I brainstormed on alternatives to mix the two players roles in their faction. 2 ideas came to mind.

Rebels or Imperials option: One player controls the military. The other player handles missions.

Imperials option: One player is in charge of finding the Rebel HQ, the other player is in charge of defending/other matters.

Anyone else have any more ideas?

You're complicating the process.

You split the leaders (blue and yellow), but you don't split the actual roles. Any leader can move military units, and they can move any and all. The rules don't change from a single player game.

Single player game: place leader on planet you want to move military to, and move as many military units from neighboring systems as you wish (no restriction on army/navy)

4 player game is the same.

You wouldn't want to split military/mission control. Military actions are important, but probably won't take half your leaders per turn, and some of your military leaders may be needed for missions due to their skills.

LOL

Interestingly enough, they just posted todays update, and it's about the game with more than 2 players!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/2/29/im-with-you-too/

Pretty good break down. Nothing really shocking.

LOL

Interestingly enough, they just posted todays update, and it's about the game with more than 2 players!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/2/29/im-with-you-too/

Pretty good break down. Nothing really shocking.

Yeah it really is just a single player game with a fairly arbitrary split if you want to play with more (probably great for teaching the game). Most sensible split but effectively changes nothing, quarterbacking is going to reign supreme.

Even if quarterbacking is the end result, at least each player has control over certain interactions, and these interactions are about evenly split.

That being said, the need for secrecy and bluffing should reduce overt quarterbacking.

I like the split. I might actually play this with 3-4 players, while I'd never play War of the Ring with more than two.

They did a good job of marketing the 3-4 player game in today's article. It got me excited to try it, even if it does turn out to just be hot air. But I really believe that requiring players to coordinate in the presence of the opponents is a great way encourage teammates to trust each other without overtly telling each other what to do.

They did a good job of marketing the 3-4 player game in today's article. It got me excited to try it, even if it does turn out to just be hot air. But I really believe that requiring players to coordinate in the presence of the opponents is a great way encourage teammates to trust each other without overtly telling each other what to do.

Agreed. The way they've presented it, the 4-player game sounds like a lot of fun.

I'm liking three player, with a single Imperial player, is going to be thematically fun. The Emperor and his singular voice, versus the petty political bickering inside the Alliance. I may have read the Zahn trilogy too many times.

I'm liking three player, with a single Imperial player, is going to be thematically fun. The Emperor and his singular voice, versus the petty political bickering inside the Alliance. I may have read the Zahn trilogy too many times.

Honestly, I'd think it would be the other way.

The Rebellion is going to be united by a common goal. They know how valuable every single soldier is no matter if they are planetside or flying in space.

The Imperial forces though would be split by traditional command structure. The only way to get promoted is to get noticed, so no Army General would want a Navy Admiral to steal his thunder during a military victory. Their assumption of victory would mean that they'd get cocky and try to prove themselves by one upping someone else.

Take a scenario.

Imps launch a surprise attack against a Rebel system. Only leader not used is Navy. The Rebels wanted to move some forces, but decide control of this system is too important, and the Admiral moves the leader to defend.

Reverse it so the Rebels launch a surprise attack against a loyal rebel system that is subjugated. The only defenders are army, and the only leader is navy. The General demands help from the admiral to defend the system. But the Admiral views his military conquest of another planet as a bigger victory for himself. Something he can wave in the face of the General later. So he politely refuses and says his plans are more important. Then plays his Naval leader in another location.

I'm liking three player, with a single Imperial player, is going to be thematically fun. The Emperor and his singular voice, versus the petty political bickering inside the Alliance. I may have read the Zahn trilogy too many times.

Honestly, I'd think it would be the other way.

The Rebellion is going to be united by a common goal. They know how valuable every single soldier is no matter if they are planetside or flying in space.

The Imperial forces though would be split by traditional command structure. The only way to get promoted is to get noticed, so no Army General would want a Navy Admiral to steal his thunder during a military victory. Their assumption of victory would mean that they'd get cocky and try to prove themselves by one upping someone else.

Take a scenario.

Imps launch a surprise attack against a Rebel system. Only leader not used is Navy. The Rebels wanted to move some forces, but decide control of this system is too important, and the Admiral moves the leader to defend.

Reverse it so the Rebels launch a surprise attack against a loyal rebel system that is subjugated. The only defenders are army, and the only leader is navy. The General demands help from the admiral to defend the system. But the Admiral views his military conquest of another planet as a bigger victory for himself. Something he can wave in the face of the General later. So he politely refuses and says his plans are more important. Then plays his Naval leader in another location.

The article agrees with you.

"This is true even in a three-player game; in such a game, the solitary player plays the Rebel Alliance but still uses the team side of the Rebel faction sheet, dividing the leaders between the Admiral and General leader pools."

Seems to me that 2 player rebels would be really hard to coordinate defending the base while also keeping its location a secret.

Forgottenlore, I disagree. I don't think you would move stuff to or from the hidden base to the nearby systems that often. Inversely, you are regularly bluffing, so, sending fleets all over to "interdict space" would be in character. So, you and your partner would discuss moving a fleet or troops but, you would both have to be on the same page from the get go. I could see an issue if a power struggle arises tho. "that idea is stupid, why would I move a fleet there?" kind of thing.

Hersh, part of having a secret base is knowing when to move it. If it appears a Imp fleet is moving in the direction of your base, 1 player may notice this and may decide it would be best to move the base. The other player may not notice it, or may prefer to fight the initial battle from an accidental discovery, and then move.

Trying to communicate your plan about the base with another player would be difficult.

If you let on that you think you should move due to an immanent threat, the Imp player may be able to deduce where you are at.

It's true that they could have a plan going into things, but plans rarely survive the first encounter with the enemy.

It's true they could develop a secret code. 'Would you like some pudding?' = 'Should we think about moving the base?'

They could also excuse themselves from the room to discuss things.

The rebels have a slight disadvantage when trying to work as a team. They can't really openly discuss plans. Their fleet and army are small, their production is also small. Their tactics are a lot of hit and run covert stuff. On top of that, they have to decide their play first. They lay down their missions, commit their forces, decide their plan, and the Imps get to try to counter it.

The Imps can openly discuss what they think the Rebels are going to do, and can even reveal portions of their battle plan. If the Imps have a large fleet near a world that has AT-AT production facilities, it wouldn't be a surprise to land there, subjugate and convert the system. They can openly point that out, discuss the pros/cons and then decide to make the move.

For the Rebels to launch a secret attack from the Rebel base, they'd need to discuss which planet they wanted to hit, what forces to use, if it was safe enough to pull those units from the base because of the proximity of Imp fleets. If they did that in the open, the Imps could easily get set up to defend or retake the planet.

Now, either side could use those kind of discussions to mislead the enemy. Planting bad intel through double agents would be a good plan. But again, you'd have to be on the same page communication wise to know when your partner is trying to plan with you or mislead the enemy.

They could also excuse themselves from the room to discuss things.

No they can't. The article specified that all discussions have to take place in front of the enemy.

Strange and nonsensical, but true!

I re-read the article just to find that, and I think it's an awful rule. It would basically mean all communication for both sides was done solely on open channels without any type of security.

It's honestly just weird.

Seems like all those Bothan deaths were trumped up a bit as the Bothans just downloaded the info from the unsecured google drive account.

You're supposed to cooperate, but any and all meetings with your senior staff are recorded and distributed to your rivals.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I could see this devolving into a humerous disaster. "But you told me to move there!" "It was supposed to be a bluff, now you gave away our plan" "No, you just did by confirming it wasn't a bluff". Man I can't wait for this game. Ooooo, and I have a birthday coming up.