I'm very excited about this, both X-Wing and Armada scenes tend to get dominated by the tournament players because they have the loudest voices, but I feel it's the more narrative driven players who build things up from the grass roots level and get people more involved.

I'm very excited about this, both X-Wing and Armada scenes tend to get dominated by the tournament players because they have the loudest voices, but I feel it's the more narrative driven players who build things up from the grass roots level and get people more involved.

As the latter, I would like to agree, but what makes you say so?

There are a few serious campaign pitfalls.

1) Map campaigns or any kind of campaign where winning gives you a significant advantage. You typically see a few players jump out to an early lead, then other players quit because they know they can't win, and the more powerful players absorb their territories and become unstoppable. Anyone who's played a Warhammer campaign with unedited GW rules knows exactly what I'm talking about here.

2) Campaigns where winning a battle has little/no effect on the next, so you're essentially not running a campaign at all.

3) Campaigns that try to do something "new" and "narrative," but end up being too bulky and unfair.

Creating a campaign system that is easy and accessible but also changes the game in a way that's really exciting is incredibly difficult. If it were easy, well, a lot of people would have done it by now. I'm excited to see what FFG comes up with.

reegsk is spot on. Also, in space campaigns with a hyperspace escape mechanism, where builds in battles can be uneven, the player with the smaller builds tries nothing more than escaping the battlefield, because fighting with less points is impossible is a balanced game (Armada).
Battles need to be balanced but not have long term impact on future fleet builds or, like reegsk said, the weak get weaker and the campaign becomes unplayable for the losing side(s).

I do think that the things that reegsk and Thraug are challenges, but I do think that they can be overcome by players who are willing to hang tough for a campaign.

But do you guys think that FFG will have solved the conundrum somehow?

One way that might help is for there to be a significant fog of war so that the players are unsure of how well (or bad) they are doing. That seems to be the mechanic under Rebellion. The Empire is certainly militarily hegemonic, but can she find that hidden Rebel base on time? The players don't know, because - like a good strategy game - it is based on opacity and misdirection. Sun Tzu would approve.

To your first point, MH, I definitely agree. From personal experience, most campaigns I've seen before try to include as many people as possible, and you always have those people who drop out as soon as they think they're doing poorly. I'd love to run a campaign where everyone stars with X points, and once a ship is destroyed, it's gone. So you really don't know how your enemies are doing until their ships drop out of hyperspace. But that involves a lot of paperwork and needs a very dedicated group of players.

I'm hoping maybe they have. I would imagine they're shooting for something more basic, though.

One of the options I have been thinking about lately to deal with those issues in campaigns is the idea of campaign scenarios that are designed to be "balanced" with asymmetric forces. If a 500 point fleet attacks a 200 point fleet and you try to run the battle using standard tournament rules then yeah, the outnumbered force has no chance and just wants to get out of the situation with as little damage as possible. But it seems to me that if the campaign has a scenario for one sided battles that gives easier objectives to the underdog and much more difficult objectives to the superior force then, depending on the actual game system, it should help to mitigate those problems.

TLDR - have scenarios that are balanced with unbalanced lists.

To your first point, MH, I definitely agree. From personal experience, most campaigns I've seen before try to include as many people as possible, and you always have those people who drop out as soon as they think they're doing poorly. I'd love to run a campaign where everyone stars with X points, and once a ship is destroyed, it's gone. So you really don't know how your enemies are doing until their ships drop out of hyperspace. But that involves a lot of paperwork and needs a very dedicated group of players.

I'm hoping maybe they have. I would imagine they're shooting for something more basic, though.

Another option would be that X-amount of points always has to face X-amount of points, even if one side has X+Y amount of points available in the entire fleet. If forces are chosen ahead of time and dead=dead rules are obeyed, then the winner's benefit is having a greater range of options to choose from in compiling the lists that go to combat.

One of the options I have been thinking about lately to deal with those issues in campaigns is the idea of campaign scenarios that are designed to be "balanced" with asymmetric forces. If a 500 point fleet attacks a 200 point fleet and you try to run the battle using standard tournament rules then yeah, the outnumbered force has no chance and just wants to get out of the situation with as little damage as possible. But it seems to me that if the campaign has a scenario for one sided battles that gives easier objectives to the underdog and much more difficult objectives to the superior force then, depending on the actual game system, it should help to mitigate those problems.

TLDR - have scenarios that are balanced with unbalanced lists.

I like what you're saying about asymmetric forces. It strikes me that if the Corellian campaign is not based on asymmetric warfare to begin with, then it's not really Star Wars, in which a hegemonic government is trying to defeat an insurgency.

In that respect, Armada - as we know it - models conventional symmetric warfare, which is not what Star Wars is really about. Rebellion captures that better, IMO.

Why not just balance two stories out like X Wing and TIE Fighter (PC games)? I mean, ultimately you may be playing the losers, but you can make life real miserable for the winner.

Why not just balance two stories out like X Wing and TIE Fighter (PC games)? I mean, ultimately you may be playing the losers, but you can make life real miserable for the winner.

Could you elaborate? I have not played either of those games in upwards of 20 years.

+ 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)

Dras,

I've taken these quick ideas an integrated them into my campaign system as campaign bonus cards - take a look: http://kdyards.com/misccards.view.php?id=1416 and http://kdyards.com/misccards.view.php?id=1417

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like your take on them, as well as any further ideas you might have to "force" an objective for the sake of a campaign narrative with some appropriate rewards.

They seem okay, I'd have to actually read up onthe rest of the campaign system in full to get a total understanding, but if you feel rewards of such a magnitude are appropriate, that's good to start with.

I'll see if I can work on some more ideas tonight. Just got my kiddo to bed *early* (Its only 10pm!) and I'm wondering if I should just go to bed instead, since it'll be the first day in 3 months I've been in bed before Midnight.... >.>

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.

So create a baseline for each objective.

Intel Sweep are damaged droids or pieces of wreckage from another ship.

Dangerous Territory's are something along the lines of strategic points where you are placing spying devices and want to make it look like you are trying to sneak in (or something)

Mine Fields. . . need I say more?

Hyperspace Assault. . . need I say more?

Contested outpost, you are liberating or subjecting an outpost (we actually played this exact line at Red Castle last year, was really fun!)

Fleet Ambush. . . need I say more?

Precision Strike, you are giving awards to the best gunners and bombers in the sector for their daring strikes against the rebellion. . . etc.

It is not hard Michael. A few of these you have pitched before and we have done. All you need is a mini list written down on a post-it or something that you can refer to and add onto as time goes on

+ 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)

Dras,

I've taken these quick ideas an integrated them into my campaign system as campaign bonus cards - take a look: http://kdyards.com/misccards.view.php?id=1416 and http://kdyards.com/misccards.view.php?id=1417

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like your take on them, as well as any further ideas you might have to "force" an objective for the sake of a campaign narrative with some appropriate rewards.

BRILLIANT! I approve!

So far You and DA have made things I can wholeheartedly get behind. Good job!

So create a baseline for each objective.

[...]

It is not hard Michael. A few of these you have pitched before and we have done. All you need is a mini list written down on a post-it or something that you can refer to and add onto as time goes on

Yes, we've gone over this before. While I'm sure that it suffices for some, for me it's like porcine cosmetics.

Like I said, earlier (note the bold text):

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.

I've been writing HNN stories for over two years now. Before I had the blog, I wrote them in DagobahDave 's campaign threads (e.g. here ). So, in the sense of thinking of the stories as after-the-fact rationales, I've been doing that for a long time. I just doesn't trip my triggers the way that it used to. You'll have noticed that my posting rate has gone down to a trickle. Well, that's because I'm desiring something more than an after-the-fact.

Then create a reason when you build your list. Create the theme, the scenario, etc. Why do you think I painted a blue rebels fleet and my damaged red and black fleet. Do what Vykes did and design a background story. Use those games as a way to add more depth to that story.

Instead of focusing on the problem, focus on the solution.

Instead of focusing on the problem, focus on the solution.

Dude...

Did you notice that Marauder1983 were meeting last Friday to talk about stuff far and beyond that sort of thing? You were playing just a few feet away. Since then I've been writing and coding and image manipulating deep into the night every day. I've also been working on putting a 4'x8' galactic map up at Red Castle games.

So, what is this about not focusing on the problem, but focusing on the solution?

Instead of focusing on the problem, focus on the solution.

Dude...

Did you notice that Marauder1983 were meeting last Friday to talk about stuff far and beyond that sort of thing? You were playing just a few feet away. Since then I've been writing and coding and image manipulating deep into the night every day. I've also been working on putting a 4'x8' galactic map up at Red Castle games.

So, what is this about not focusing on the problem, but focusing on the solution?

I don't know your plans, nor do I read your minds. I am not a part of your chat either. Do as you will bit if you are going to complain about not being able to create a scenario on the spot for an objective then continue to ignore Drasnighta or my advice for we have already given you examples of that already that can be used during the fact and not after.

Instead of focusing on the problem, focus on the solution.

Dude...

Did you notice that Marauder1983 were meeting last Friday to talk about stuff far and beyond that sort of thing? You were playing just a few feet away. Since then I've been writing and coding and image manipulating deep into the night every day. I've also been working on putting a 4'x8' galactic map up at Red Castle games.

So, what is this about not focusing on the problem, but focusing on the solution?

Do tell me how I was supposed to know that? Please, if you believe I have the hearing of a bat, maybe but I was giving my focus, my attention and such toy opponent as I should. All I knew was that you were going to talk about your epic format which I think needs a lot of work before I consider it viable.

I don't know your plans, nor do I read your minds. I am not a part of your chat either. Do as you will bit if you are going to complain about not being able to create a scenario on the spot for an objective then continue to ignore Drasnighta or my advice for we have already given you examples of that already that can be used during the fact and not after.

I'm not saying you should have known that. You really should have been focusing on your game with the new guy, which is a great thing that you do. You've kept yourself out of the other conversations. However, you might have easily been aware that I've been conjuring something - at least enough to not jump to the conclusion that I'm having a crying fit of helplessness.

As to the pieces of advice given, you're giving me advice on how to boil an egg when I'm trying to make Hollandaise sauce.

Lyraeus, I have no interest in this stuff because I play for the tactical challenge. I suspect you are the same. Leave Mikael be. Neither of us can be particularly helpful until they want to balance a well rounded idea out. Thats the bit we are good at, not the early idea generation.

Why not just balance two stories out like X Wing and TIE Fighter (PC games)? I mean, ultimately you may be playing the losers, but you can make life real miserable for the winner.

Could you elaborate? I have not played either of those games in upwards of 20 years.

From what I remember (it's been since the late 90's myself) when you played TIE Fighter, the missions were set up that the Empire would win, but you could have degrees of success with the mission objectives given. I mean in those games, outright failure would lead to having to re-run the mission. But I suppose if you translated this to Armada, you'd want to work around that.

I do agree making it where anybody could win a round and having a snowball effect is not great. Why not have it balance with missions where one side is supposed to be the winner, and grade it on the performance on how well they won?

Woah now Ginky me bucko', 'taint right breaking etiquette like that by puttin' yerself in the middle of a proverbial domestic dispute. Join usn's at the table and stay outa that one or you'll lose more'n just a hand in that bear trap. Don't go lettin' your mascara run while screeching, "leave Michael aloooone! He's a human being!" Now, I don't drink but I'll order up if anyone wants.

Speakin' of ordering up, I'm still right excited about preordering this Corellian Conflict Campaign Package (hail the glorious CCCP, Comrades!) as I'm right in the 'narrative makes the game' camp. But the objectives are so vague, so broad, and so easy to manipulate into said narrative, that I'm champing at the bit to get a look at what they're adding. That said, I do wonder if this will eventually lead to an Armada: 2.0 a la X-wing's Force Awakens, will it be stand alone, or if this is going to be more like the debris obstacles in X-wing where you can buy it and substitute it with the regular obstacles and if you don't have it, it's no big loss. Either way, I'm eager to hear what they're doing with this one. Hmm, come to think of it, is there an IA equivalency? There's nothing like it in X-wing as far as I know.

Quite right Stasy, mate! There's the set up in Tie Fighter that has secondary and secret objectives which affect some outcomes. But if I recall (while I played Tie fighter about 6 months ago, I've got my brain partially fried by X-wing Alliance), it's more to do with the objectives from the Emperor's Secret Order agent that changed the most. The general storylines didn't change much as far as I can recall, that was X-wing versus Tie Fighter's Balance of Power campaign where you could outright lose and still progress. I run my own campaign based on a modified tournament point system based on 'theaters' where those points add up to certain results. Said results change the narrative and influence the whole sector, though certain conditions can immediately end a theater and trigger the next. Now, as a totally personal note: I like the idea of map campaigns but I don't like how they function because of the snowball effect. Lots of little effects add up to nearly unstoppable power which is just not that fun. It's also far harder to apply a narrative to a straight map campaign without sub-dividing it into theaters. However, I do think there could be a compromise...

Lets analyze this a bit. What are we seeing in the campaign: we've got what looks like 6 different recognizable token types (maybe more) with 2 likely sets of tokens, the blue and orange (initiative colours, coincidence?), which have presumably 19 each if we assume a balance between blue and orange. There appears to be 25 'titled' spaces on said map and one sub name attached to the outside of that 'box'. Each 'line' has 3 named spaces, the box cordon has 6, and the 'short line' has 1 purple thing. Meanwhile, the space between the two longer lines has just 2, and the 'outer reaches' on the map edge side have 5 named spaces each. If you take into account the amount of easily accessible spaces in the main box, the outer rims, and the 'in between' territories, we have 19 possible spaces. Make what you will of all that. I haven't a clue if that token sheet includes all those tokens, or if it also includes the station and obstacle.

Now here's where the conjecture on my part begins: what if this is a hybrid ladder/map campaign? We start off with a big special scenario, then focus on the more typical map-based 'capture the territories' in the box, supplemented with the potential of gaining additional outer territories for additional effects. I've been looking at it for a while that the two longer lines were approach vectors with the purple as a climactic end, but what if they're exit vectors? The winner of that typical map based segment could lead to the 'path' that is taken at the end, represented by either line. Each line depending on the blue vs. orange nature of the capture conditions? IE, more orange than blue, take the orange path and follow preset scenario list 1. It would leave the sandbox feeling for the beginning and significantly affect the end stages narrative of a campaign which allows replayability as well as a tighter narrative structure with the option of playing as few as 10 games, or as many as 20-22. It also avoids the pitfalls of a typical campaign, a weak unscripted ending where a rolling 'win' was in the cards. This way, it also leaves most of the games at the typical 400 level but allows at least 4 instances where it could be more or less.

It's just a theory, who else's got one?

Post Scriptum: looking at the cards at the bottom left, we see that there's squadron cards (I swear the top looks like a blurry B-wing) and we see objectives. No ship cards cards and no upgrades that I can see, unfortunately, but at least we have that squadron dial and special character token thing... I think. But what's the one beneath the face up squadron cards? I don't recall seeing that. Could that be our new 'mechanic' card such as flotillas or the like? Or something new entirely?

Well, it is Wednesday. Maybe we'll get lucky with an article.

I was actually thinking about secret objectives, which t seems is similar to something FoaS has in his campaign system?

So instead of playing Contested Outpost where everyone knows what the battleground will be, each player picks a secret objective. Something like destroying the enemy flagship, reducing each enemy ship to half its hull, getting a particular ship off of the opponent's board edge, etc. It would be hard to make them balanced (although if everyone's onboard with a fluff campaign, and you have a good feedback loop, that's not as big of a problem), but it could add a lot of fun. You don't know exactly what the opponent's strategy will be, because you don't know what their objectives are.

I don't have secret objectives in my campaign system (yet? I'm open to suggestions).

To sum up how my system does work, each Supply Depot planet gives you campaign points. Battles also give you campaign points (determined by the MoV chart). You can play Campaign Bonus Cards using your Campaign Points. Some campaign bonus cards affect the campaign, some give you bonuses in the next battle, and so on. Before a normal battle, you "bid" campaign points to see who is player 1 vs player 2 and the battle proceeds as normal. However, there are some campaign bonus cards that force the game to be played with a certain objective, and reward the person who played that campaign bonus card for pulling it off.

One thing I could do is have the same kind of campaign bonus card, but instead of determining the objective, you have a secondary objective you try to accomplish. The difference is that if you lose the battle, but still succeed on the secondary objective, you still get the reward on the campaign bonus card. I do like the idea of this secondary objective being secret, too... I will have to think on this.