So do you think that the Corellian Conflict campaign would work best as a straight up 1v1 duel? I suspect that it might, at least in some ways.

I generally have some problems with co-op games, because as a team, there is usually one GOOD way to proceed, and when there's one best choice, it takes some of your freedom away. I personally mitigate this by doing crazy things- (In Zombicide I'll often try to get the team killed by taking unnecessary chances, just because it's a purely for-fun game). Anyhow, I really am not a huge fan of sharing the battlefield with another person. In a campaign, where future missions depend on the decisions your team makes - having one bad teammate will not only ruin your game, it could ruin your month.

So do you then tell them what to do? And if so, they are no longer playing the game. An Alpha Player will emerge on either side to dominate the decisions, and then it's really just 1v1 again, with people alternating who touches each piece, and who rolls each die.

Or am I overthinking it?

You're overthinking it.

When none of the actual mechanics have been spoiled yet in reagards to fleet composition, the mechanics for repair, replace, death, etc, etc, etc, its impossible to make an actual informed view on it.

That, and it may just be you don't play well with others, and that's entirely what the point of a campaign is - playing well with others.

Nothing wrong with that.

Just might mean a campaign isn't for you.

But that's cool, because the Campaign Box has all of those nifty things in it, that are useful even without the campaign itself.

Oh I play great with others.... I just prefer that if a game is effectively going to have shared decision making - that it be a purely casual game. like one of those escape rooms, or zombicide, etc.

Imagine if you are playing Armada and you are about to attack a Star Destroyer and someone says "no dude, you need to do anti squadron fire", and the group votes that you now need to do anti squadron instead of doing what you wanted to do. That just isn't how Armada works for me....

Same thing with the game Rebellion. It's a 1 side, vs 1 side game. they market it as a 2-4 player game, but anyone who's even played it knows right away that it's clearly a 2-player game, and adding anyone else is just silly. It's like making chess a 12 player game, 6 players per side and we all have to agree on what to do.

It's a fun framework for Armada battles, giving meaning to victories and losses.

It will be as casual as you choose to make it. After all, it's just tabletop spaceships.

I crave this campaign. . . big picture tactics. . . oh yes. . .

Imagine if you are playing Armada and you are about to attack a Star Destroyer and someone says "no dude, you need to do anti squadron fire", and the group votes that you now need to do anti squadron instead of doing what you wanted to do. That just isn't how Armada works for me....

If this sort of thing bothers you, then you don't play as well with others as you feel. Or at least, do in a different way than being shown

Solo play will be best. That way you'll always win.

I mean, let us keep in mind that there are Rules, and Rules certain things...

For example, I am sure that at the end of the day, even when you're playing with multiple fleets on the table at one time, you will be conforming to the Rules of Team Play...

Which has certain things covered...

Like this:

Page 14, RRG

"TEAM PLAY"

Each player takes exclusive control of one or more of his team’s ship and squadron cards and makes all decisions for the corresponding ships and squadrons. This includes choosing commands, attacking, spending tokens, etc.

and

During the Ship Phase, the players must agree on which ship to activate when it is their turn to activate a ship. During the Squadron Phase, the team must agree on which squadrons to activate.

If teammates cannot come to an agreement on a choice, the Team Commander makes the final decision.

I will also caveat my statements so far with this:


I am generally (in real life), a nice guy. I win many sportsmanship awards in my other games, and I foster a great community of players here in Hothgary.

... But I do not play well with others.

Nossir.

I went to RAAF College. I was taught to lead . You better back up any chain of command statements with an actual chain to beat me with, if I get out of line, because otherwise, no... No I do not play well with others.

Imagine if you are playing Armada and you are about to attack a Star Destroyer and someone says "no dude, you need to do anti squadron fire", and the group votes that you now need to do anti squadron instead of doing what you wanted to do. That just isn't how Armada works for me....

I went to RAAF College. I was taught to lead . You better back up any chain of command statements with an actual chain to beat me with, if I get out of line, because otherwise, no... No I do not play well with others.

To me it is a bit of both, first off who ever is in command is in command, and we all should follow it. How I do it is before we start figure out who is in command, normally by who has the highest ranked officer on there ship. And we also decide what the ships/squadrons are supposed to do. For example if player one has Tarken on there ship they are in command as he is the highest ranking Empire right now. However if player two has an admiral when (if) Tarken is killed command switches to the next player who is now in command. As for the ships if you have a Raider and before the game starts it is deiced it will be used for anti-squadron that is its main job, that does not mean that the overall commander can not say I need you to hit this ship, or what not. But the way I play may be different than others, and sometimes (often) it is difficult to not take charge when the others who are not prior military do not really take command, but if I just keep taking command they will never get better.

I'm sorta in line with Drassy on this one, we should probably wait to hear about the specific mechanisms of team play before coming to a conclusion. I play campaigns anyway and I love the cooperative nature of needing to look into the big picture to make decisions work. For gamers like me, there is nothing better in all wargaming than that shared experience.

Personally, I don't like the Alpha player mentality, but I'm also well aware of how easy it can be to 'adjust' an Alpha player's decisions in ways to make it sound like the new idea was their idea in the first place. Meaning, I'm a manipulative b*****d, or as they say in corporate: a consensus builder specializing in conflict resolution. That in itself is enjoyable to me. I like getting people to work together against their own selfish nature in order to achieve something greater. I've been told that I'm a good opponent, pleasant enough, generally easy to overlook until I start talking, and surprisingly good when it comes to speeches and presentations. I guess that makes me the 'Hux' of the Episode VII baddies: not as forceful or visionary as Kylo Ren, not as 'cool' as Phasma, not actually in control like Gollum, but nominally a second in command based on the capacity to follow the overall leader and ability to create some semblance of collaboration.

Oh right, not about me: -ahem- I feel it's too early to judge the best capability of the game's multi-player mechanism, but your mileage will inevitably vary depending on your personality and that of your group. My experience may be entirely different from yours, and neither of us will be objectively wrong based on that difference in personalities and expectations.

Crabbok, I don't dislike you, mate, so I feel I have to preface that before I say this: I've found it's rarely accurate to take anyone at their word when it comes to self-reflective values. Those kinds of things are best heard from a third party source (ironic vs. hypocritical on my part, that's for you to decide, eh?). From what I'm getting, you don't really seem to play well with others in a cooperative environment. You might be great to play against, or 'against' such as is the case in those mutually destructive cooperative games (like Munchkin) which is something different.

"In Zombicide I'll often try to get the team killed by taking unnecessary chances, just because it's a purely for-fun game" vs, " I just prefer that if a game is effectively going to have shared decision making - that it be a purely casual game. like one of those escape rooms, or zombicide , etc." didn't you sort'a say you're actively seeking to do the 'crazy' thing because it's fun for you rather than good for your team? Shooting a star Destroyer because it's what you want to do versus shooting squadrons during a group vote? I'll leave it at that.

Either way, I'm excited... that preview should be here soon enough so we can speculate more about it, eh?

Solo play will be best. That way you'll always win.

Stop that, you'll go blind!

Solo play will be best. That way you'll always win.

Stop that, you'll go blind!

Given my local player base....I'm screwed.

I think Crabbok it is going to be more along the lines of :

Each team has to split the board into areas, and work towards objectives as decided among themselves, so each turn you can do 2/3/4 attacks and you say "Ok, I think my fleet would be best trying to complete this mission in this sector, yours would be best doing that one." and then you both play your opponents fleets. and so to take full advantage of the limit per turn, you divvy them up.

I do not think it is going to be be several players controlling the same fleet in the same game.

My take away from the article was there is 2 teams with X players, and you can build up your fleet over time, but I think it is 1v1 matches for a sector. I think the bigger problem would be the debate that would occur over who gets what heros/titles. Can you imagine 3 Imps fighting over Rhymer? Or Demo?

Otherwise, if there is a co-op matches, I think I would want total control over my fleet, and not sharing it with my partner. Afterall, I spent 3-4+ weeks building this, why would I let someone else turn my ships into fireworks?

But I think it's still too early to come to a conclusion, and you can always invite some friends and play this campaign with house rules.

I went to RAAF College. I was taught to lead . You better back up any chain of command statements with an actual chain to beat me with, if I get out of line, because otherwise, no... No I do not play well with others.

Yeah... I just had to post this.... You called for it....

.... I miss Firefly....

My take away from the article was there is 2 teams with X players, and you can build up your fleet over time, but I think it is 1v1 matches for a sector. I think the bigger problem would be the debate that would occur over who gets what heros/titles. Can you imagine 3 Imps fighting over Rhymer? Or Demo?

Well, maybe if they didn't rely on such a crutch...

My take away from the article was there is 2 teams with X players, and you can build up your fleet over time, but I think it is 1v1 matches for a sector. I think the bigger problem would be the debate that would occur over who gets what heros/titles. Can you imagine 3 Imps fighting over Rhymer? Or Demo?

No, as only one Empire player in the area will use Demolisher, and Rhymer is used even less.

being a vet of multiple miniature game campaigns for multiple companies there seems to be some common rules.

1. the games are normally one-on-one.

2. team is loosely defined as in the same faction, and does not normally mean they have to work together or coordinate.

3. if an area chart is involved it is normally the highest score team for that week that gets the victory.

4. opponent must be from an opposite faction.

5. the campaign director or campaign book normally dictates how the zones of combat are determined.

all that said there tends to be little or no interaction between the players on strategy.

Except we have been told that the campaign culminates in a final battle where there are massed and joined fleets involved.

again without a final read through the rules on how this is handled it could mean anything from

large multi fleet games to just as stated one-on-ones for total overall scores at the corellian system.

its hard to tell before we see the campaign book.

Yep, we have to go on heresay and rumour.

It appears to be individual games, counting up on the "game state" weekly (or fortnightly, depending on your group), and then one big ol' fight at the end.

But beyond that, specifics are elusive.

I think it was "Campaign *may* culminate" I don't think the ending is going to be a large scale battle every time, though I am not fact checking so this is based purely off memory. This also doesn't necessarily mean there won't be large scale battles with more than two players during the actual campaign either. I think there is still a lot we need to know about the campaign which will hopefully be spoiled soon.

Friday is the most likely time, now... Can't completely discount the possibility of getting an article tomorrow, but , it is certainly less likely than Friday, based on history.

The Window is open for it, so any day is a possibility.