Haven't posted in quite awhile, life often gets in the way.

For those interested im still doing my Tie aces tutorial, though I hardly think any tutorial I could write up would be necessary at this point. Beyond excellent stuff coming out of this community.

Just playing around with rules ideas and such, so everything here is WIP though I would appreciate whatever opinions anyone wants to offer.

Also anyone may use anything I post without my permission for whatever they want.

The Concept:

As we know Star Wars was heavily inspired by and based on WW2, especially the space combat. Thats the line of thinking with these new objectives and game mode which take into account mainly the original trilogy and my own knowledge of WW2 naval engagements.

Custom Ships:

MC 75 Barracuda

List of Cards:

Radec - Final

Allegiance Class Star Destroyer

MC 75 Barracuda Cruiser

IR-3 Class Light Frigate

Updated Upgrade Cards/Bellator Class Star Dreadnought

The reference card, If anyone has a higher resolution Jpeg of a reference card I would love to get that from you

The Navigation Objective card for Fleet games.

Defense Games.

And Assault.

The real meat of this game type requires that you have 1 or more ships with the carrier modification title. Mainly when creating these the ISD, Mon cal Liberty Types, Home One, and the SSD were what i had in mind.

This is what I feel the Home One from ROTJ actually was, which is to say more of a control and command ship and the foil to the Empires SSD. as such she is a very powerful ship but no more offensively minded than the MC80 assault variant. Though I may give it just slightly beefier offensive stats. Obviously it would be better if you also used a model that is more in scale with the actual Home One, I recommend Mels great substitutes https://www.shapeways.com/product/CCH98BCNU/armada-home-one-quot-3-2-km-version-quot?li=shop-results&optionId=59051579

Though a 12' model would have been ideal for the 3.7km relative scale model especially for what i would want to do with the carrier mechanics the 10' model he has made is worlds better than the rinky dink but very detailed FFG model. You could go balls out with the big 18' model witch is closer to real scale than relative to the ISD but I wouldn't recommend it for table space.

And if youd like to check out what the 10' one looks like for comparison, and painted. check out Matt's awesome job here.

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1346338/mel-miniatures-custom-3d-printed-ships-and-squadro/page/23

That said I would love some feedback on this boy if you have any, or if youd like to posit some criticism im all ears.

This doesnt actually have to do with the carrier mechanic or gameplay but is just something i put together. Mainly for my roleplaying games. Radec is an antagonist and Bounty Hunter much like Boba in my games.

A few things to note, i've never actually played the SWTOR rpg game this ship was designed for but I did a bit of research to see how she might be stated, the only thing i might consider changing atm is adding a new keyword along the lines of allowing fighters who shoot at her some amount of rerolls due to her size.

such as.

Large: Enemy squadrons attacking you get 1 reroll (this would be in addition to other rerolls).

Anyway thats it for right now let me know what you guys think.

Being a competitive player, I wouldn't lend myself to play these because IMO the game is quite rich as is, and i found that homebrew missions and upgrades are usually counter productive while trying to mantain a competitive mindset.

But that's just my opinion, your work looks good both from a balance perspective and a visual one, and I'm sure you will find a lot of people interested in what you're doing.

Love this plan!

Have you posted any of this on KDY?

http://kdyards.com/index.php

Yavaris, Raymus, Fleet Carrier and 7xD5 Mantis.

28 red and 14 Blue dice firing at close to medium range and the carrier nice and safe 5 feet away from all the action.

Ouch!

I like it, the only thing I have doubts about is the 50% squadron option. If we go by FFG's 1/3rd rule (so 200 points of squadrons) that is potentially 25 Tie-fighter squadrons (but more likely around 15-20 squadrons), which would already bog down the game substantially. At 50% you are easily reaching 25+ squadrons with characters and more expensive squadrons and what not, potentially even reaching 35 squadrons per player.

Also, the Mantis seems a bit too powerful.

Not sure I agree. The points reflect the power level on the Mantis. The only thing that I keep going back to for squadrons of this type is to add a Command 2 keyword, requiring a single activation to count as 2 squadron against the carriers squadron value.

My own creation of the Imperial Skipray Blastboats is in the same line.

http://kdyards.com/squadrons.view.php?id=188

http://kdyards.com/squadrons.view.php?id=215

As far as the 50% goes, it is more a matter of preference. Personally I don't mind a marathon 600+ point game, and have goon as high as 1200. While I agree it is not for everyone. The 1/3 squadron limit is only there for time constraints of Tournament play. I see no reason not to ignore it as the mood strikes you in casual play.

The Mantis and Radec seem pretty powerful for their price. I'd be concerned about balancing issues there. Nine hull on a squadron is a whole lot. I feel what you are trying to do, but for what they are, they should cost more. I mean, 2 red, 1 blue anti-ship is only a slightly watered down (no crits) corvette that can move and then shoot pretty much whenever it wants. For half the cost of an actual corvette. And with 9 hull, it's not even that much more squishy.

The amount of better Radec is for only 8 points is crazy. 1 extra speed, 1 extra hull, 1 extra anti-squadron dice and then the special ability.

Compare this to Dash Rendar, who is 8 points more expensive than a YT-2400. He gains bomber and his special ability and that's it.

Edit: I just realized cannons give it bomber ability. So yeah, its a naked corvette for 24 points.

On a positive side, so I'm not just beig a jerk, I really like the idea of the whole system.

Ok, I didn't notice that Cannons gave it bomber too. Could be doable if it was just the range. 2 interceptors would shred one of these though, so the points are not that far off.

Interceptors are designed to fill a single role, which they are very good at. but they aren't really good in any other role and they can't take a hit. For 11 points, that makes sense. 22 points of interceptors could shred a Mantis (if it could lock it down), but that doesn't mean the 24 point Mantis is a good price for it. The reason is because the interceptors are spending ALL 22 of their points doing exactly what they are designed to do. The Mantis is spending all 24 of it's points defending against interceptors, have a pretty significant AA punch itself (3 dice is nothing to sneeze at), being an amazing bomber platform. The amount of multi-purpose bang (in before "phrasing") you get for your buck with a Mantis is much higher than an interceptor.

The base Mantis should lose bang in at least a few areas or cost a lot more.

Some thoughts not concerning the Mantis.

You might need to try and redesign the command dials and what they do. I mean, currently, obviously every carrier is going to just throw squadron dials because why wouldn't they when they are activating 10 squadrons. Maybe the engineering values of carriers should be a little higher to encourage it. Maybe concentrate firepower could be more potent (2-3 dice extra or the ability to use the extra dice against all squadrons instead of just one). Maneuver. I dunno. 2 extra yaw would be sweet.

Alternatively, maybe carriers could just automatically get to activate X number of squadrons and throwing a squadron command doubles that activation or adds something to the activation.

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1371685/how-cost-customs-and-variants-point-formulas-and-o

I used these methods for pricing. the Mantis might cost to low im unsure.

I was going to perhaps add another keyword along the lines.

Large: squadrons may reroll 2 dice when attacking you. because you are easier to hit.

unfortunately the ship is a bit of a cheat ship in that in SWTOR it wrecks face. so id be more inclined to just increase point cost.

I hadn't thought about commands, and you make a good point.

Much higher though for the Mantis im unsure, its already one of the most expensive squadrons in the game and the most non unique its almost 2 yt-1300!

perhaps in addition to large one more anti squadron dice should be taken away.

I dont really like the command keyword Cyan, i think it complicates things to much for me. And the flavor isn't right with that. bounty hunters should be the most independent.

Yea I do like Kaut Yards but I like the card layouts of the regular game more, could you add those?

I could churn stuff out that way.

Also just going over this again. Do you think i should limit the regular carrier card, maybe to large ships only?

And actually I should get rid of Rogue on the normal Mantis right, only Radec should have that yea?

Tareq. I think its a matter of preference, but given star wars nature based on WW2 engagements and what is shown in the movies. The fighters are where thing shine. But its just a matter of preference I think

As an alternative, you could always go a different Keyword... I mean, let it keep Rogue, but add:

"Independent" : You cannot be activated by Squadron Commands.

Still does its moving and shooting independently in the Squadron Phase due to Rogue, but it means it can't benefit from an early jump, or any Squadron-based Upgrades on Ships... That is a penalty, and it asserts the independent nature of the design - because it wasn't supposed to operate in conjunction with ships somewhat - its an odd middle ground there.

I like that alot Dras. But I would combine it with the rules in rogue so it would only have the independent keyword. Svae space and all that.

I really do like that though. And its goin in the direction of fleshing more stuff out for a mercenaries or independent faction. Which I didnt know if I wanted to do but I really like the ideas i get with that.

I dont really like the command keyword Cyan, i think it complicates things to much for me. And the flavor isn't right with that. bounty hunters should be the most independent.

Yea I do like Kaut Yards but I like the card layouts of the regular game more, could you add those?

I could churn stuff out that way.

Also just going over this again. Do you think i should limit the regular carrier card, maybe to large ships only?

While I love the original look, the printer friendly version is great for playtesting!

EDIT:

I've added the range capability of your Cannons as a keyword on KDY, however, I did not include the aspect of being able to resolve crits. I decided to do it this way so that you could have a non-bomber version of cannons. If you want to achieve the original intent, combine Cannons and Bombers on a single squadron.

The Wife is out of town for a week starting Friendly, so I will have all kinds of time after the little ones are in bed. Feel free to post anything else here. I'll get it in.

To solve the command dial issue, you could change the carrier card to just be "Once per round, you may activate squadrons up to your squadron value as if you had used a squadron command dial.". For the cheaper (smaller) carrier cards, maybe it could be as if they used a squadron token for free (1 squadron).

That said, the squadron value should maybe be less than 6. 4 or 5 is adequate. If they then PULL a squadron dial, they get their carrier upgrade activation plus whatever their normal activation would be. So double activations more or less. With this method, it still makes sense to pull other commands, provided they rest of the game doesn't make those commands unbalanced still.

Well I dont really want to change the squadron numbers. 6 plus the 4 from command carrier gives the Home one the 10 squadrons it should have (depending on which interpretation you like)

Its the same with the regular carrier and the star destroyer. And I have the bigger ships in mind for the Empire that have ever larger aircraft compliments. What you're seeing with the Home One is essentially the biggest carrier the Rebs will get which is why it seems so high

Wu I dont think I understand what you mean with the command dials and squadron commands. Could you go into more detail.

With the current iteration let's say you have Home One with 6 squadron value and the command carrier card. Everytime Home One pulls a dial, it'd be dumb unless that dial is a squadron command. It gives Home One very little flexibility in it's own right because the squadron value is so tremendously better than any of the other dials.

My solution to this fact is the change squadron value to 5 on the Home one and then change the carrier card to read something like "Once per round, you may activate squadrons up to your squadron value as if you had used a squadron command dial." That means every round Home One can magically, for no command cost at all, activate 5 squadrons because it's squadron value is 5 (assuming you put my change in place). Since the revised command carrier card does not say it can't stack with a command dial, should Home One actually pull a squadron command dial it now gets the command carrier activations, which are free, plus the activations from it's command dial, which is additional 5 activations. That's 10 activations.

Should Home One need to repair, manuever, or throw down some fire it can pull those dials as well. It still gets the 5 free activations granted by the carrier card.

With this method your carrier has more options available to it and the spirit of it being a carrier-style game is still maintained.

All that said, Concentrate Firepower, Engineering, and Manuever may STILL be underpowered compared to how powerful an additional 5 squadron activations would be. That's why I would recommend altering those commands for your game style to be more potent and therefore more of a choice in which command you want to choose. These are suggestions just off the top of my head. You could make these changes ONLY applicable to command carriers if you wanted.

Concentrate Firepower - Same rules except when using AA as an attack, you can add 1 AA dice for each squadron attacked instead of only 1.

Engineering - Simply raise the engineering value of the carriers. Or have Engineering commands grant Double engineering value for command carriers and engi tokens grant single engineering value.

Maneuver - Same rules except you may increase your yaw value by 2 instead of 1. Since the ISD and Home One are both pretty lumbering, this would be useful.

On a completely side note, I also feel with so many points in squadrons, the game might just devolve into carriers being ripped apart in a few rounds at most. Think of how fast a fireball or a Yavaris Scurrg/B-wing team can rip through a light or medium ship in the current 134/400 point game. If the game is 300/600, the possibility of ripping apart an ISD with bombers (or hell, even A-wings) in a round or two is very real.

To combat this major change, I feel like there maybe should be a way to counter Intel. Maybe two Intels could cancel easy other out in distance 1-2 of each other. I dunno. Something to consider.

Edit: Silly me, I didn't notice you buffed up the Home One considerably. This is a good answer too.

Ohhhh I really like that actually, thats a great Idea!!!! though Ill have to think on how to word it for it to be lock tight in terms of its use, Im not particularly good at wording these rules out that way.

I definitely think concentrate fire and maneuver should be modified in some way, but i already did increase the engineering on Home One to 5, do you think it needs more? 5 is quite alot is it not? thats 2 shields and a transfer every time you use it.

Foas. I actually did that originally as well, see where your coming from. But I wanted to save space on the card for the other explanations. Also the point of cannons was to simulate the capital grade armament on the Mantis and I thought that naturally because its just ship weaponry that it to should be able to crit. its also why it can fire up to medium. But I understand where you coming from with the versatility.

Also where are you getting your Icons! mine was just the turret icon from X wing but your icons always seem to be nice and spot on.

Edit: I understand your concern with fighters, but thats really the point of this mode from me. Ill reiterate my preamble, Star Wars was heavily inspire by WW2 and as someone who is very familiar with WW2 naval structure/doctrine thats what this is going to be based off of. And so yes, fighters will reign supreme in this system, but it wont leave ships in the dust or even obsolete like Rocket on the BGG forum was worried. Or at least that is not the intent.

That said I am slightly worried about the ability for non bomber fighters to kill large ships, It would be a bigger change than i would personally like to make but it may be necessary to make it so fighters without bomb/heavy bomber/cannons etc to not be able to damage the hull of ships or maybe just large ships. thats something im playing around with in my head.

I didn't initially see Home One got buffed. I assume the ISD will get a similar buff. If that's the case, maybe 5 engineering is fine. I really don't know how balanced my ideas are, they would need significant play-testing. I really suck at Vassal, but I love squadron gameplay enough that I would be willing to assist with the playtesting should you want help.

No, I dont plan on giving the ISD a buff. I would definitely love someone to play test these, as especially I dont really have the time to do it myself. More so to know how fun it is though XD

I would go with the verbiage of "Before you reveal a command dial, you may activate a number of squadrons at close-medium range equal to your squadron rating"

edit: quick change clarifying range (don't want folks thinking you can do this anywhere on the board)