I was about to comment on that, GK. Being pedantic about spelling and then misspelling a word. . .

For Once, I am not the Nazi here

Rumor has it, it ships next month. Scheduled to sail around the world 14 times, stop and take pictures at both North and South Pole, then be made available to players in 2020.

Has this thread actually turned into an argument about the meaning of the term cooperative?

Like, for real?

Seriously?

I'm just excited about this campaign set which seems to include cooperative elements in the form of teams with head to head elements in the form of crushing your opponents in a great game. Just sayin.

It is my pet peeve when people use words that do not mean what they think it should and then expect everyone to just go along. So on this issue I am guessing I am the Grammar Nazi. I do understand that it is not a co-op game as most use the word, the fact that they are using it wrong, even if common usage it is still the wrong use of the word.

Rumor has it, it ships next month. Scheduled to sail around the world 14 times, stop and take pictures at both North and South Pole, then be made available to players in 2020.

Talk about taking the scenic route

That said, I have to say that this is probably the single announcement that has brought me the most joy since I started playing this game. My friends and I had a bi-weekly Imperial Assault campaign that we played, but we just lost a player and had one person leave but find a replacement and now it just doesn't feel like it used to, and we have been looking for a way to mix it up and give us a new experience for the new group. We tried X-Wing, but that was just a bunch of us all playing in parallel and didn't meet the social need of us all hanging out. We then played a big team game of Armada and loved it, but without the carry over campaign from week to week it didn't have the same sense of involvement as the IA campaign and after the second time around people were having a hard time fitting it into their schedules. I was thinking I could do something simple week to week (not getting all crazy developing a campaign, pretty much just a branched narrative a la Imperial Assault) but a full blown FFG penned campaign would definitely be something my friends and I could sink a large amount of time into! Cheers FFG!

Has this thread actually turned into an argument about the meaning of the term cooperative?

Like, for real?

Seriously?

I'm just excited about this campaign set which seems to include cooperative elements in the form of teams with head to head elements in the form of crushing your opponents in a great game. Just sayin.

Also Red Castle is correct on definition but it doesn't matter, it's going to be a team game.

Must.... resist urge.... to reply.... to not.... derail the thread... any further!

God! It's killing me!!!

Has this thread actually turned into an argument about the meaning of the term cooperative?

Forum threads are Premier level content.

If we split up into teams of 2-6 to argue the scemantics of cooperative play, is that being cooperative or not?

If we split up into teams of 2-6 to argue the scemantics of cooperative play, is that being cooperative or not?

Signups for FFG Armada Debate Team below. Participants must maintain minimum B grade average.

ANYWAY,

I wonder what sort of aspects will be modeled in this game. We can see in the image that they will have new objective cards (thank the Maker!), but I wonder if there will be campaign-related conditions that will determine which objectives are chosen for which battle, in contrast to the standard game, where first player chooses one of 3 that the second player selected.

What do you think it might be?

ANYWAY,

I wonder what sort of aspects will be modeled in this game. We can see in the image that they will have new objective cards (thank the Maker!), but I wonder if there will be campaign-related conditions that will determine which objectives are chosen for which battle, in contrast to the standard game, where first player chooses one of 3 that the second player selected.

What do you think it might be?

Bah, I still think you need to try some new list designs and thought lines for the current objectives. You have an amazing imagination that you can easily use for this.

There may be campaign sections to do that, there may also be campaign segments that let you design how the Corellian Conflict will turn out. We can only wait to see what occurs.

I wonder what sort of aspects will be modeled in this game. We can see in the image that they will have new objective cards (thank the Maker!), but I wonder if there will be campaign-related conditions that will determine which objectives are chosen for which battle, in contrast to the standard game, where first player chooses one of 3 that the second player selected.

What do you think it might be?

Bah, I still think you need to try some new list designs and thought lines for the current objectives. You have an amazing imagination that you can easily use for this.

There may be campaign sections to do that, there may also be campaign segments that let you design how the Corellian Conflict will turn out. We can only wait to see what occurs.

Thank you for the compliment, but I think you misunderstand my point of view. I don't fault the existing objectives for their balance, playability, or the degree to which they provide intriguing tactical challenges. What I want are objectives that connect logically and plausibly to a wider strategic narrative. If by 'imagination' you mean that I can easily suspend disbelief that the twelve objectives we currently have adequately model tactical situations that I think are likely in a SWU setting, then I think you overrate my imagination.

The thing is, you and I have different pleasure centers, so to speak. Those gaming 'g-spots' touch on the things we're good at. I'm a so-so tactician; you're a great tactician. Your enthusiasm is for the building of lists, the testing of tactical theories, etc. And that's what the standard game of Armada is absolutely built for.

My g-spot is in the process of imagining what the game might be modeling in that galaxy far far away; what the stakes of the battles are; how the outcome of the battle we are playing will determine if resources get through to a beleaguered world; how the siege of that planet affects the loyalties of the inhabitants of that world; if that world loses faith in the Rebel cause, does that mean that elsewhere in the galaxy people also lose hope? In order to spin that in my mind, I want adequate models. I just don't think that the twelve we have do a good job of modeling the range of potential situations.

I also think that an admiral in the SWU would have to frequently face a large range very different tactical challenges, rather than the limited number of objectives we're given.

My g-spot is in the process of imagining what the game might be modeling in that galaxy far far away; what the stakes of the battles are; how the outcome of the battle we are playing will determine if resources get through to a beleaguered world; how the siege of that planet affects the loyalties of the inhabitants of that world; if that world loses faith in the Rebel cause, does that mean that elsewhere in the galaxy people also lose hope? In order to spin that in my mind, I want adequate models. I just don't think that the twelve we have do a good job of modeling the range of potential situations.

I also think that an admiral in the SWU would have to frequently face a large range very different tactical challenges, rather than the limited number of objectives we're given.

I'm with you on this one, theme and immersion is still the most important thing to me in this game, I know I would not play it if it was not set in the Star Wars Universe. That's why what bugs me the most is when someone post (not sure I saw it on the Armada forum, but on the X-Wing one we see it from time to time) 'Gameplay >>>>>>>Fluff'. I get that you want a balance game, I do too, but please have some respect for the theme.

That's not to say that I don't also get my enjoyment from the tactical aspect of the game and that I don't lose many hours just theorycrafting over a fleet builder, but again, I would not do it if it was not about Star Destroyers, or Mon Cal Cruiser, or Corellian Corvette, etc.

That's also why I'm actually more excited about this campaign than I was about Wave 3-4. It has the potential to bring so much to the table in pure enjoyment and by putting aside the usual 400 pts tourney format. It will be GREAT for our Armada week night that I want to start!

That's also why I'm actually more excited about this campaign than I was about Wave 3-4. It has the potential to bring so much to the table in pure enjoyment and by putting aside the usual 400 pts tourney format. It will be GREAT for our Armada week night that I want to start!

My FLGS has a weekly HotAC meetup, and it makes some pretty funny stories. They play it closer to dungeons and dragons, so while the missions are pre set, they could end up a bunch of different ways with the "space master" creating emergent and player led gameplay.

I hope we can do that with armada too.

Thank you for the compliment, but I think you misunderstand my point of view. I don't fault the existing objectives for their balance, playability, or the degree to which they provide intriguing tactical challenges. What I want are objectives that connect logically and plausibly to a wider strategic narrative. If by 'imagination' you mean that I can easily suspend disbelief that the twelve objectives we currently have adequately model tactical situations that I think are likely in a SWU setting, then I think you overrate my imagination.

And here's where I think there's a bit of a discounnect on the concept as well...

I've been trying to wrap my head around the subject - but its just that it seems that you can either have widely connected narrative objectives... Or you can have stand alone objectives... and it would be difficult to have them both be balanced against each other...

Some of the objectives do relate to tactical situations we'd find in the Star Wars Universe - but at this time, they just lack the veneer of the storyline concept...

... I've read your previous Imperial Writeups. You do have the imagination to:

+ Show the glory of a new Imperial Weapons Test as the Rebels desperately throw all they have to counter it (Advanced Gunnery)

+ Race to pick up escape pods from the Mon-Calamari Cruiser you just destroyed before the enemy are able to (Intel Sweep)

+ Cause as much attritive damage to an enemy mustering fleet before they enter hyperspace and assault a lightly defended imperial complex (Opening Salvo)

I mean, there's 3 staple-ons for you... I'm sure I could wrap up more...

And I'm sure you could too...

... But I think the best you'll get from a campaign system is one that provides baseline tactical objectives like we have... But provides that storyframework within the campaign itself... Possibly as a Nodal system...

::shrug::

I don't know.

But I do think you can suspend your belief far enough - because you are a good writer already

That's also why I'm actually more excited about this campaign than I was about Wave 3-4. It has the potential to bring so much to the table in pure enjoyment and by putting aside the usual 400 pts tourney format. It will be GREAT for our Armada week night that I want to start!

My FLGS has a weekly HotAC meetup, and it makes some pretty funny stories. They play it closer to dungeons and dragons, so while the missions are pre set, they could end up a bunch of different ways with the "space master" creating emergent and player led gameplay.

I hope we can do that with armada too.

I think what I'm the most curious about and can't wait to learn more is the ressource system. What can you really do with your ressources? How much are they worth? Is it hard to buy a new MC80 ship? Are they preset like they are in Star Wars Rebellion (can only build this kind of unit on this planet)?

Also, will you be able to make your own admiral? What happens if you lose a ship with a unique upgrade? Is it lost forever?

It makes me think about games like Axis&Allies or Star Wars Rebellion, but instead of just rolling dice to resolve the conflicts, you play a game of Armada. So much potential, I'm very glad that FFG is doing it.

That's also why I'm actually more excited about this campaign than I was about Wave 3-4. It has the potential to bring so much to the table in pure enjoyment and by putting aside the usual 400 pts tourney format. It will be GREAT for our Armada week night that I want to start!

My FLGS has a weekly HotAC meetup, and it makes some pretty funny stories. They play it closer to dungeons and dragons, so while the missions are pre set, they could end up a bunch of different ways with the "space master" creating emergent and player led gameplay.

I hope we can do that with armada too.

I think what I'm the most curious about and can't wait to learn more is the ressource system. What can you really do with your ressources? How much are they worth? Is it hard to buy a new MC80 ship? Are they preset like they are in Star Wars Rebellion (can only build this kind of unit on this planet)?

Also, will you be able to make your own admiral? What happens if you lose a ship with a unique upgrade? Is it lost forever?

It makes me think about games like Axis&Allies or Star Wars Rebellion, but instead of just rolling dice to resolve the conflicts, you play a game of Armada. So much potential, I'm very glad that FFG is doing it.

I was thinking to that... Use Star Wars Rebellion as a template for a campaign mode but some question's arose :

Like how to work on the ressource systeme. Do the attacker is the first player or we stay with lower list. Do you accept a retreat from your starting side. With the new Interdictor on the map, do you have the obligation to destroye it before any attemps of retreat. New kind of objectives like escort transport / dropship to the planet. Do you need Victory class (who is considered as a orbital bomber in the SW Rebellion PC game) to drop down ground defense. All that kind of funny stuff that need to be settle before starting.

I'm really waiting for the preview of what FFG will do to etablish a campaign mode in the Correlian Conflict.

That's also why I'm actually more excited about this campaign than I was about Wave 3-4. It has the potential to bring so much to the table in pure enjoyment and by putting aside the usual 400 pts tourney format. It will be GREAT for our Armada week night that I want to start!

My FLGS has a weekly HotAC meetup, and it makes some pretty funny stories. They play it closer to dungeons and dragons, so while the missions are pre set, they could end up a bunch of different ways with the "space master" creating emergent and player led gameplay.

I hope we can do that with armada too.

Yeah. I'm currently playing in a HotAC campaign too. It is really awesome.

Thank you for the compliment, but I think you misunderstand my point of view. I don't fault the existing objectives for their balance, playability, or the degree to which they provide intriguing tactical challenges. What I want are objectives that connect logically and plausibly to a wider strategic narrative. If by 'imagination' you mean that I can easily suspend disbelief that the twelve objectives we currently have adequately model tactical situations that I think are likely in a SWU setting, then I think you overrate my imagination.

I've been trying to wrap my head around the subject - but its just that it seems that you can either have widely connected narrative objectives... Or you can have stand alone objectives... and it would be difficult to have them both be balanced against each other...

Some of the objectives do relate to tactical situations we'd find in the Star Wars Universe - but at this time, they just lack the veneer of the storyline concept...

[...]

... I've read your previous Imperial Writeups. You do have the imagination to: [...]

But I do think you can suspend your belief far enough - because you are a good writer already

Thanks.

You are helping me refine my own understanding of the issue. You're right, I can conjure up a story when the battle's done, but I think my issue is that an after-the-fact rationale just does not trip my triggers in the same way as a before-the-fact reason does. The few moments before the game after drawing the objectives - which also does not model in-universe strategic choices - don't really count as before-the-fact.

The means by which the objectives are chosen are also in order to serve the tactics, rather than the tactics existing to serve the strategy in a wider conflict. That's like fixing a car because you wanted to play with tools.

Then there's the issue of repetitiveness.

There's an easy fix to that in a home-brew campaign system: let the scenario dictate the objective, not the players.

There's an easy fix to that in a home-brew campaign system: let the scenario dictate the objective, not the players.

I'm working on one (again). I'm glad it comes easy to you, though. On my end, it's still about implementation. A few years ago, I developed a campaign engine for X-Wing, but then gave up when I couldn't find the player base. Hopefully, as I've developed my community more, it'll be more likely to happen this time.

I was thinking to that... Use Star Wars Rebellion as a template for a campaign mode but some question's arose :

Like how to work on the ressource systeme. Do the attacker is the first player or we stay with lower list. Do you accept a retreat from your starting side. With the new Interdictor on the map, do you have the obligation to destroye it before any attemps of retreat. New kind of objectives like escort transport / dropship to the planet. Do you need Victory class (who is considered as a orbital bomber in the SW Rebellion PC game) to drop down ground defense. All that kind of funny stuff that need to be settle before starting.

I'm really waiting for the preview of what FFG will do to etablish a campaign mode in the Correlian Conflict.

Yes, I also got into Rebellion, hoping for the same thing. I do think that there as some concepts that can be taken from it, but it's almost as if that game is at too high of a level of war - the political level, and we need an operational level sandwiched in between.

I wonder what sort of aspects will be modeled in this game. We can see in the image that they will have new objective cards (thank the Maker!), but I wonder if there will be campaign-related conditions that will determine which objectives are chosen for which battle, in contrast to the standard game, where first player chooses one of 3 that the second player selected.

What do you think it might be?

Bah, I still think you need to try some new list designs and thought lines for the current objectives. You have an amazing imagination that you can easily use for this.

There may be campaign sections to do that, there may also be campaign segments that let you design how the Corellian Conflict will turn out. We can only wait to see what occurs.

Thank you for the compliment, but I think you misunderstand my point of view. I don't fault the existing objectives for their balance, playability, or the degree to which they provide intriguing tactical challenges. What I want are objectives that connect logically and plausibly to a wider strategic narrative. If by 'imagination' you mean that I can easily suspend disbelief that the twelve objectives we currently have adequately model tactical situations that I think are likely in a SWU setting, then I think you overrate my imagination.

The thing is, you and I have different pleasure centers, so to speak. Those gaming 'g-spots' touch on the things we're good at. I'm a so-so tactician; you're a great tactician. Your enthusiasm is for the building of lists, the testing of tactical theories, etc. And that's what the standard game of Armada is absolutely built for.

My g-spot is in the process of imagining what the game might be modeling in that galaxy far far away; what the stakes of the battles are; how the outcome of the battle we are playing will determine if resources get through to a beleaguered world; how the siege of that planet affects the loyalties of the inhabitants of that world; if that world loses faith in the Rebel cause, does that mean that elsewhere in the galaxy people also lose hope? In order to spin that in my mind, I want adequate models. I just don't think that the twelve we have do a good job of modeling the range of potential situations.

I also think that an admiral in the SWU would have to frequently face a large range very different tactical challenges, rather than the limited number of objectives we're given.

Geez, just get a room already!

My main hope is that each battle isn't a straight up match as we have now, but has varied restrictions on point sizes, ships and number of ships available in that battle for each side, with objectives that differ for each side per battle. If that turns out to be true then the world will be magnificent :-)

My main hope is that each battle isn't a straight up match as we have now, but has varied restrictions on point sizes, ships and number of ships available in that battle for each side, with objectives that differ for each side per battle. If that turns out to be true then the world will be magnificent :-)

Indeed.

I'm curious how they will solve the basic problem of higher-level campaign vs. the lower-level matches. If someone is mastering the top level ( "get there firstest with the mostest " (incorrectly attributed to Nathan Bedford Forrest), then the lower-level games will probably not be as much fun, because they'll be largely determined. On the other hand, if the campaign does not create some imbalance, what's the point from a gaming perspective? (While I'm a loremonger, I still like the game aspect too.)

I have great respect for FFG's ability to craft great games, so I'm really wondering what balance they'll create.