There's been a lot of bandying about of local campaigns, which are all well and good. They're even probably quite exciting, for those involved! But they're also an enormous commitment, due the overhead involved with getting into real-life Armada games. Heck, tournaments, which will likely consist of a "mere" three games, can require an entire day! What are we ambitious Armada fans to do with our dreams of truly grandiose strategy and dramatic storytelling?

To me, Vassal seems like the obvious answer. Rather than a Google Drive document or a ragged spiral notebook, coordination of campaigns, invention of unique missions and scenarios, and conspiracy between implacable Imperial and devious Rebel admirals. Even more importantly, it allows swapping out of admirals and recording of battles to drive interest and maintain reasonable pace.

While I don't see this beginning before the end of the Vassal Team Tournament (in part due to my own reluctance to compete with those titans of coordination running the show), I have some suggestions to start.

• A Simple Start:
  • Model the campaign on a simple decision tree. Set up unique scenarios and objectives for each mission. As a simple trial run, this could have two layers - one meeting engagement with five outcomes - tie (6-4 or lower MoV), favored I/R (8-2 or 7-3) and victorious meeting I/R (9-1 or higher).
• Mixing it Up: Depending on interest, this decision tree, rather than "spawning" a single game from each outcome, could spawn 2 or more. Depending on people's willingness to set things up beforehand, this would allow for a variety of different scenarios. Consider:
  • An initial clash between Admiral Skreed and Garm bel Iblis turns against the Imperials, resulting in the destruction of Insidious and the crippling of Demolisher.
  • In response, Admiral Tarkin rapidly musters an oversized fleet (600 points) of outmoded ships (requirement: must include 4 or more VSDs) against a world sympathetic to the Rebel Alliance, happening to catch Mon Mothma as she helps coordinate the movement of non-humans away from "pacification" campaign. To accommodate for the huge point discrepancy, Mothma gets special rules and/or altered victory conditions (perhaps using some of those very interesting custom ships available through Vassal?) to provide a fighting chance.
  • At the same time, Admiral Ozzel's lighter fleet (no Large ships allowed) encounters a rag-tag fleet (no duplicates) lead by Admiral Ackbar in an asteroid field (double obstacles, but no station). Who will prevail?
• Going Big: From here, "the sky" doesn't even begin to describe our potential limits.
  • Clone Wars scenarios?
  • Living worlds, where opposing teams must coordinate movement of fleets across a collaboratively designed map?
  • Simultaneous, secret movement and minimal scouting options that results in unexpected clashes?

An Objector certainly can dream. Perhaps the scope of these ideas I'm describing are, a little too ambitious, and everything will fall apart. But if I don't offer them, who will? Well, somebody, probably. But I'd rather not wait.

Let's Begin (to plan):

As much fun as I'd have participating in one of these campaigns, I'd be happy to kick things off by helping coordinate one.

So, what do you say, fellow forumites? Any takers?

I love things like this. I say go big or go home. Biggs usually has some great ideas for stuff like this. I'd be curious what his thoughts might be. The only problem with these types of this is finding a way to end it. It's usually pretty hard to find a satisfying way to do so.

I love things like this. I say go big or go home. Biggs usually has some great ideas for stuff like this. I'd be curious what his thoughts might be. The only problem with these types of this is finding a way to end it. It's usually pretty hard to find a satisfying way to do so.

Oh thats easy, Just end it with the UTTER ANNIHILATION OF THE REBEL SCUM!!!!

This sounds epic, I would definitely be interested whenever this kicks off.

I'll propose more ideas tomorrow morning. Something a little more concrete, both for the "christmas tree" approach of branching scenarios and for the persistent world/battle-map method.

I love things like this. I say go big or go home. Biggs usually has some great ideas for stuff like this. I'd be curious what his thoughts might be. The only problem with these types of this is finding a way to end it. It's usually pretty hard to find a satisfying way to do so.

Oh thats easy, Just end it with the UTTER ANNIHILATION OF THE REBEL SCUM!!!!

And what if you're not the one to land the final death blow? Might feel like robbed wouldn't you? More likely, however, is a scenario where the thing just evolves into a long running stalemate where neither side can gain the upper hand. The best way to avoid that is to give things a slight narrative push.

For example, I ran a LOTR campaign when I worked for GW back in college. I made it open world so that everyone could manuever as they saw fit. However, there were clear objectives that both sides had to accomplish. Destruction's objectives were the recapture of the ring or the destruction of both Minas Tirith and Helms Deep. Order had to keep at least one of those two cities intact and destroy the ring by getting the fellowship to Mordor (their movements were hidden and Destruction armies in the area rolled to see if they could detect them). It effectively put a timer on the campaign. It kept people MORE interested as things progressed rather than gradually petering off like most campaigns.

Even then, objectives alone did not determine the winner of the campaign. If Order managed to get to Mount Doom (which is what happened) we had a huge event to do the Battle of the Black Gate. If Destruction managed to recapture the ring, I would have done a Siege of Minas Tirith event, but allowed a Destruction player to bring Sauron in all his glory. The deck was stacked in favor of whomever completed their objectives, but the opposing faction still had that last desperate hope to hang on to. These type of culminating events would be near impossible to do in Vassal, but are usually integral to making the campaign successful. I'll brainstorm over the next few days to see if I can come up with something.

Wow, I love this idea, and would totally be up for participating/helping organize! I've always wanted to try a narrative driven/persistent campaign for a board game, but have never had the play group who could commit the time, Vassal really might just be the answer.

A few ideas off the top of my head. First is that this opens up the option for team play, since Vassal can accommodate up to 4 different players. It wouldn't be for every mission, but maybe for some of those more climactic battles Truthiness is talking about.

I love the idea of using some of the custom ships on vassal, not too many, but enough the shake things up a little. Those ships and the custom missions would finally give me an excuse to stretch myself and use fleets I wouldn't normally consider for competitive play. This is something that people definitely need to have a slightly more casual mindset about IMO.

I would suggest setting the Campaign just after Hoth but before Endor. This time period allows for the fleet battles, and give a starting point for any missions that want to follow any sort of "cannon" (though the missions themselves are obviously original).

A few general ideas/questions for campaign goals:

• What will be the mission format? Several smaller missions leading to a big battle (possibly multiplayer), the smaller missions would affect the advantage for the big mission? Or numerous smaller missions that chain?
• Will the ship and squadron pool for each side be persistent/limited or unlimited list building or pre-selected per the mission? Maybe only titled ships or aces are persistent? Will there be ways to replace ships (missions, construction)?
• Rewards for missions: I like the idea of new ships, more points for future missions, or restrictions put upon the other side for future missions
• How do the teams decide who plays each mission? Hierarchy? Rotation? Or do players just find an opponent and ask for a mission? (more work for Organizers (there should probably be several), but with Vassal having a game setup and ready to start turn 1 is a possibility. This also allows these pre-made missions to be saved so others could use them in campaigns of their own)
• What decides the Campaign end? I think that each side should have one goal, they can work up to this goal by completing missions (maybe certain missions offer more end goal progress, but less immediate rewards).
  • Possible options:
    • Rebels: killing key imperial commanders. Capturing important persons, or ships (using the Vassal extras in the Shipyards extension). Destroying a Death Star (Endor recreation?). Capturing a sector from Imperial control using harassment and a few decisive large fleet battles.
    • Imperials: Killing or capturing important persons. Eliminating the Rebel home fleet. Creating a new Death Star (frightens everyone into submission, assuming this one has adequate squadron protection......).
• What rules will need to be introduced for the missions to make the persistent campaign flow? Retreat rules to avoid needless losses? (maybe one round of no shooting as you prepare to jump?), maybe ships running off the board retreat instead of being destroyed?

How about tracking persistent damage, giving a reason to hold shipyards for repair points, etc? Having to commit damaged ships to desperate battles could be epic...

I love this and I would definitely be up for participating, as Rebel or Imperial (although does anyone object to me having the Demolisher? Crippled or uncrippled )

Some thoughts

Unique Officers. If a ship with a Unique Officer is destroyed, that officer should be out for the remainder of the campaign. You could have "Stress tokens" when an officer, commander or named ship is destroyed to cancel points for future fleets.

Escape Pods. What about an upgrade that would fit into the "Defensive retrofit" slot which could carry Commanders and/or Unique Officers to safety? You could have something like

"The opposing player rolls as many Red dice as there are of his friendly ships at medium or close range of the destroyed enemy ship (no rerolls or dice modifiers). If the damage total is greater than 2 then you may discard this card and any other card attached to it or move the attached cards to your "Captured" point. If the attack misses then the attached cards can be reused later in the campaign."

Defection Could enemy commanders (real players) defect from one side to the other, taking their fleet with them?

Currency Would you have currency to determine how many ships/squadrons etc you can recruit?

Force Choking If an imperial commander isn't pulling their weight, can you strangle them with Vader?

Again. I really love this idea so would be up for participating.

I would be interested in such a game.

I suggest that each side start with a limited number of ships (say 4000 points) and have only a limited supply of reinforcements.

Let a ship that takes half or more damage or flies off the board not be available for the next round if battles, then available again.

Let each title and named squadron only appear once in each round - so only one battle can feature demolisher or Luke. If Demolisher or other is destroyed, it can't be replaced or rebuilt for two rounds, and must come out of reinforcement stock.

Let there be key systems that provide more reinforcements etc. let no side outnumber another in a single battle by 30% or so.

A great idea! Let it grow!

First and foremost, good luck. Campaigns are really awesome but often take the dedication of a team to come together. So, the question is 'how involved did you want to get' and naturally 'what format did you want to go for?' The perspective number of players greatly dictates the complexity and nuances of the campaign after all. My own experience is the more normal the system, the more greater the number of players, and the greater a chance that the whole campaign sees itself through to fruition.

There's the Mission based (Game of the week) style that works really well with leagues, it's what one of my FLGS is doing for that 'other' system: 10 inter-related mission games. In this case, 'teams' or rebels vs. Imperials will likely work best over sub factions. The results in tournament points can be weighted to continue on with the campaign and affect a few little points which gain a perk here and there (nothing more than a one use card, like an exhaustible title ability, or a 'free' Veteran captain. Anyway, mission based could be something like 3 'turning point' battles each of which has 3 operations (so it would be like running 3 3-round tournaments with an 'update' and perks carried through the turning points, and allowing for a special 'event' like a multiplayer battle coming into play at the interludes.). It's not particularly customized, but it's easy and has a low barrier to entry which means that players can pick up and drop out of need be without issue (beyond appearing as a storied footnote in any 'turning point' dispatch/update).

And then there's the bigger one: map based narrative campaigning: Le grand jeu.

I've played a lot of campaigns for quite a few systems, all I can say is 'good luck again' as there's so many ways to play this. I'll just suggest an easy and not too labour intensive one. But it will require planners, and non-partisan writers (if you plan to work on any special events). My only suggestion is 'start small in scale, then work outward like a circle.'

Pick a sector, any sector, then find or make a map and replicate it. Then, divide it into separate warzones/subsectors which can be warred over. Players can register to fight in these 'pods' and campaign fleets, which should provide something of a faction balance and some Risk-esque large scale territories that can grant one or two little perks for complete ownership. Next, list some clear cut objectives and motivation, then define your end point: each faction's 'win' and 'loss' condition. Changes, accomplishments, 'citations', 'reassignments', match making, and special events can always be shared via a short narrative update at the end of a rota.

Set the stage:

• When's this campaign taking place in the Star Wars continum
  (it may affect how open ended the overal campaign is, or even limit the number of custom ships that are available).
• What's at stake?
  (What is the general objectives? Is this a purely conquest 'take and hold' campaign, or do the factions have to simply get to territory X, hold for Y amount of time, and remove for Z campaign points?)
• How is the campaign won?
  (see if there's a reason to include a set, or variable time limit, any particular 'trigger events' and anything that would be liable to significantly alter the strategic considerations of the campaign. A set timer tends to keep things from stagnating into the Galactic Western Front).
• How long will it take?
  (just having an idea is important, but it does help define things and may help with pacing.)

Well, I guess here are just a few notions for a set to jog some scenario ideas.

• A recently discovered territory hides a treasure that both factions are racing to find and unearth.
• The local Moff has been removed by what appears to be a coup. A rebel task force aims to incite a full sector wide revolt as the Imperial forces attempt to reassert control.
• Bothan spies have intercepted communiques that indicate a science facility deep in the galactic core is on the verge of a breakthrough that will revolutionize the Imperial war machine. An Imperial enclave has been set up to ensure the completion of this task, though it will take time.
• A guild civil war has ravaged the region long enough. An Imperial fleet has been dispatched to enforce peace on the region and make an example of the dissidents. The Rebel Alliance intends to take advantage of this to raise local support against the Empire and strike a blow against the Imperial fleet.
• Rebel actions in a nearby sector have been stymied at the worst possible time and now the war effort may be in jeopardy. In response, Alliance fleet assets have been dispatched to cripple a vital hyperspace corridor to deprive the Empire ofreinforcements so the Alliance main force can re-orient itself.
• The Empire has become aware of the Rebellion's efforts in the sector and have dispatched a fleet to destroy the Rebel strongholds. Alliance fleets have been summoned to blunt the Imperial advance until these assets can be relocated. (Similar to the above but shifts the time limit's impetus from Imperials to Rebels).

It's just a few ideas is all. From there, you can get infinitely more complicated, or not.

I've lost track of how many gaming campaigns I've been in, but as long as there's player involvement and no official clear cut player hierarchy, things tend to go okay. The more official hierarchies that are put into play, the more complicated the background system (more perks and rewards have a habit of snowballing), the more immense the map territory, each lessen the chance that the campaign reaching its natural conclusion. Set your end-game target and stick with it: X number of rounds and/or a certain set of victory conditions.

I'd love to join, but my net seems to hate Vassal. At least, it has in the past.

I love things like this. I say go big or go home. Biggs usually has some great ideas for stuff like this. I'd be curious what his thoughts might be. The only problem with these types of this is finding a way to end it. It's usually pretty hard to find a satisfying way to do so.

This could be a hell of a lot of fun, and there's plenty of time to plan it before the current tournament ends.

I won't say I have "great ideas" for campaigns - honestly I'm better putting tournaments together. I can help as a sounding board for feasibility / balance, and maybe promote it a bit.

This sounds pretty rad

Wow! Some great ideas here!

Here's what I have in mind: Seeing as this is a Civil War, and the Empire is vastly stronger than the Rebellion, how about having a contested sector? The Imperials would start with control of shipyards, mining colonies, trade routes, and garrisons, but would have low public support (goddamn civil unrest is the worst). They would be responsible for maintaining this mess. Probably have 3-4 ISDs, maybe double that number of VSDs, dozen or so GSDs, and barrels of Raiders, fighters, and bombers. More than enough to outright crush the Rebs, but they have to spread it around to protect all their interests (or not -- adds a lot to the deeper pre-game decisions).

Rebels, on the other hand, are very much so limited. Two MC80s, tops. Same for Assault Frigates (they seem like rare pieces to me). Smattering of small base ships. They have the advantage of surprise and the ability to pick their fights (their fighters can jump in/out of fights).

Now, to make it interesting, Imperial players are in charge of an element of 2-4 ships, while Rebel players may only have 1-2. And, to resolve scheduling issues, players can, "pledge," their ships to another player. So, if the team captain says he wants to make a sneak attack on a fueling station while another force acts as a diversion, but you won't be able to attend either game, then you can give your ships, officers, and fighters to another player to control for that task. At the cost of some gaming, you keep a sense of ownership of the campaign and allow it to go forward. And you can always say, "no."

Last idea: Each player writes up two unique officers -- one for Rebs, and one for Imps -- and costs them appropriately. Then, puts them forward for peer review. Keeps players engaged while the organizer gets things settled down before actual games start. Teams are randomized to keep players honest and on their toes.

Phew! Thank you if you read all this!

Apologies for my sudden decrease in posting. I was called into work twice this weekend, making my ability to do fun stuff much lower than it'd normally be.

I will try to put some stuff together over the course of the next week.

I think we've had a lot of good ideas raised here, but some of them are contradictory. We'll have to hash that out before we can begin in proper.

There's no reason why we couldn't have two different campaigns, and participate in both!

But no, I jest.

My other thought is to have "0" point admirals, as in, you don't have to take Screed or Motti or whoever - you just don't get any special "admiral" abilities. Perhaps instead of costing "0" they could cost "10". It depends on what you think the value of Dodonna (the cheapest admiral) actually is...