Versus a game that is Deliberately Built to Cheat to Screw you Over, and then into the Dirt, and then Keep Screwing.....

Yea that sounds like XCom

"Oh, you have a squad full of Colonels? Not anymore, you don't."

Although, I am guilty of sending out rooks to sacrifice for my squadsight sniper.

When I first played XCom 2, I sent 2 rookies and 2 squaddies to kill the Viper King. I didn't read any previews before so i didn't know what was coming. About 4 hours later and a lot of save-scumming, I decided to give up and save it for later.

Its a bit of a misnomer comparison, though...

A Cooperative Friendly Campaign...

Versus a game that is Deliberately Built to Cheat to Screw you Over, and then into the Dirt, and then Keep Screwing.....

I suppose what i'm trying to determine is this campaign system supposed to just be a framework for stringing numerous matches together in a single story with a layer of campaign strategy on top? Something slightly more serious then casual matches and to get players invested in the game.

Or is the strategy involved on the campaign level going to have a much larger impact on how the game turns out. For example are we going to have to learn how to play the campaign map more in depth. Much in the way Xcom plays. There are the battles you play out that impact the game's campaign, but what you do in the campaign is what determines if you win the game or not.

What I want to know is will your actions on the campaign level of the game, the map and determining planets to strike and what not, have any serious impact on the way the campaign turns out or do these actions only serve to spice up the fleet battles? Are there serious long term consequences to making a bad decision on the larger campaign scale that could cost you the game mid way though?

I'm not sure if i'm communicating my point effectively.

The Point of the Corellian Conflict is to Play Armada.

Decisions you make will have an effect on the game, and the games will be flavoured because of the Campaign structure around it. But you're still playing Armada.

The Decisions you make at the campaign level are going to have a difference as to who wins the campaign... And it may be entirely possible, if well managed, to Lose a big chunk of the Armada Games and still come out in front - as long as you are winning the ones that really, really matter...

Its not so much a Second Game, as to just a way to manage and modify the Armada games that are encapsulated within it...

Thanks, with all of the abstraction in my mind of it, it's good to finally understand the context to it!

Still haven't played Enemy Within or XCom2 yet.

I want to beat Enemy Unknown first.

******* chryssalids...

Still haven't played Enemy Within or XCom2 yet.

I want to beat Enemy Unknown first.

******* chryssalids...

Wait for Xcom 2 versions. 8 health and 1 armor.

I suppose what i'm trying to determine is this campaign system supposed to just be a framework for stringing numerous matches together in a single story with a layer of campaign strategy on top? Something slightly more serious then casual matches and to get players invested in the game.

Or is the strategy involved on the campaign level going to have a much larger impact on how the game turns out. For example are we going to have to learn how to play the campaign map more in depth. Much in the way Xcom plays. There are the battles you play out that impact the game's campaign, but what you do in the campaign is what determines if you win the game or not.

What I want to know is will your actions on the campaign level of the game, the map and determining planets to strike and what not, have any serious impact on the way the campaign turns out or do these actions only serve to spice up the fleet battles? Are there serious long term consequences to making a bad decision on the larger campaign scale that could cost you the game mid way though?

I'm not sure if i'm communicating my point effectively.

I'm on the same line as Drasnighta in his answer, though perhaps I can give a different spin on it:

This is an added reason to play Armada. It's effectively a narrative framework in which to play a league. That league can be store based, which allows you to drag in more people, or you can just be organizing it with your friends.

With my X-Wing community I've found that organizing a league is a great way to boost turnout, so long as you have a critical mass of players to make it work. I think this campaign offers us a more intricate and narratively more interesting framework than just counting points. Of course, it also requires a bit more organizing. However, with FFG's stamp of approval, people are more likely to embrace the more complicated framework.

I think it be each side build x numbet of fleets at 400 points.

Then the rebels say they are attacking. Sysyem A. Imperial then can defend it r launch a assault on system b. And so forther.

Dont think one 400 points fleet will ever have to take on two 400 points fleets.

However hyperspace assault will be nasty if you have to move the lenght of the table. As you only get points for ships with the token, not sqaudrons

I fail to see how FFG is expecting to square the circle: having a meaningful impact of the strategic situation on tactical battle and preventing a snowball effect.

What - you want it to be even odds for the final battle even after the rebels have been hounded from system to system across the sector? Where's the drama in that, and why bother play the preceeding rounds?

If the strategic level is meaningful, the tactical can't be. If I know there is a Correllian Corvette in the System, I am sending a Star Destroyer, not an Imperial Rider. Hardly sporting.

Well at least you can build your fleet to the maximum 400pts, as it is the Campaign system that dictates who is 1st and 2nd player, not the one who makes a low bid.

I fail to see how FFG is expecting to square the circle: having a meaningful impact of the strategic situation on tactical battle and preventing a snowball effect.

What - you want it to be even odds for the final battle even after the rebels have been hounded from system to system across the sector? Where's the drama in that, and why bother play the preceeding rounds?

If the strategic level is meaningful, the tactical can't be. If I know there is a Correllian Corvette in the System, I am sending a Star Destroyer, not an Imperial Rider. Hardly sporting.

I trust that FFG has managed to balanced things so that the slope is not all that slippery. Armada (the tactical level) will have its due, and the campaign (strategic level) will make it more awesome.

I fail to see how FFG is expecting to square the circle: having a meaningful impact of the strategic situation on tactical battle and preventing a snowball effect.

What - you want it to be even odds for the final battle even after the rebels have been hounded from system to system across the sector? Where's the drama in that, and why bother play the preceeding rounds?

If the strategic level is meaningful, the tactical can't be. If I know there is a Correllian Corvette in the System, I am sending a Star Destroyer, not an Imperial Rider. Hardly sporting.

Come, come.

I trust that FFG has managed to balanced things so that the slope is not all that slippery. Armada (the tactical level) will have it's due, and the campaign (strategic level) will make it more awesome.

That is what I hope, but the article does not address this.

Nor would they.

I understand that a campaign system would have the danger of being either/or, the way you say. But why do you argue that the golden mean is impossible to achieve?

Nor would they.

I understand that a campaign system would have the danger of being either/or, the way you say. But why do you argue that the golden mean is impossible to achieve?

It is kind of the holy grail of designing wargames so I am very curious how they want to go about it. I don't know of a game that pulled it off, but if you do, by all means tell. Perhaps it would have to look like the mission tree of the old Wing Commander computer game.

I reckon its going to be a really great basic campaign system that is readily adaptable for people that want to extend it. You can probably easily write your own map and the rules will work.

Ive been having all these crazy ideas, like

- Refighting the Tie Fighter game campaign, with rogue imperial fleets siding with the rebels, or even a full on civil war where (come wave 5), one side is restricted to high end fighters and the other has to make do with basics. Lots of station assaults where the "loyalists" have to defend the stations to gain access to Wave 5 fighters and uniques.

- A campaign where the rebels are looking to hide a fleet and build a base in the outer rim - lots of MC80s for the rebels but the imperials only get small ships to start to represent local forces and only start getting bigger ones if they can survive long enough to call for help.

I also like the idea that your fleet is going to basically be fixed for the entirety of the campaign (+ any extra points gained, - any losses!). Should make for some well rounded, balanced fleets and some mission oriented ones too.

Nor would they.

I understand that a campaign system would have the danger of being either/or, the way you say. But why do you argue that the golden mean is impossible to achieve?

It is kind of the holy grail of designing wargames so I am very curious how they want to go about it. I don't know of a game that pulled it off, but if you do, by all means tell. Perhaps it would have to look like the mission tree of the old Wing Commander computer game.

I have no more knowledge than you do about how they are going to pull it off.

I'm guessing that the capabilities for repair and massing more points is fairly modest. I trust that the campaign engine will err on the side of privileging the tactical level. Also, a thing it looks like you will gain as you control more systems is more objective cards. That, IMO, is a fairly modest gain but enough to spice things up. Then, there's the things like the spynet, which allows you "to redeploy one of your ships or two of your squadrons after your opponent has finished deploying his fleet." That's kinda neat.

Also, I imagine that some of the spice is in the idea that you can pursue different strategies, and you won't know 'till the end if they'll pay off. Do you invest in gaining more resources, so that you can keep your fleet in good repair, or do you go straight for the campaign points in order to reach the finish line (ahead of your opponents) sooner. Also, with it being multiplayer, people will try to balance out the quality of the players on each side, but that's not up to FFG's game design.

Something that makes me sad is that the lowly generic tie fighter and interceptor are even more undesirable in the campaign setting than in tournament play where they are already used fairly lightly.

Their low health means they will die often, and if they aren't fixed up, they will come back even weaker and die permanently. So they are much more likely going be a consistent drain on refit and resources. Where the tougher ships will more easily survive and not be such a drain.

I wanted to see more of them, not less.

If FFG is really on the ball, they will have a rule like this in the campaign:

• Non-unique squadrons with the "Swarm" ability cost zero points to refit.

Something that makes me sad is that the lowly generic tie fighter and interceptor are even more undesirable in the campaign setting than in tournament play where they are already used fairly lightly.

Their low health means they will die often, and if they aren't fixed up, they will come back even weaker and die permanently. So they are much more likely going be a consistent drain on refit and resources. Where the tougher ships will more easily survive and not be such a drain.

I wanted to see more of them, not less.

Unless I'm reading the article incorrectly, any non-unique squadron, or ship without a title or commander on it won't require refitting in order to be at full capability.

I'm not sure if its actually spelled out that way, but I could see that happening....

Doubly so, if those Uniques who are surviving and killing are earning Veterancy at the same time, but your Generic stuff doesn't qualify for it at the same time, to incentivise/disincentivse equally...

I'm not sure if its actually spelled out that way, but I could see that happening....

Doubly so, if those Uniques who are surviving and killing are earning Veterancy at the same time, but your Generic stuff doesn't qualify for it at the same time, to incentivise/disincentivse equally...

I'd love more details on Veterancy as well. Man, so much more to learn about this campaign.

Are 22 tie fighter fleet lists viable?

Mass ties imo are viable

Low number TIEs are viable. I don't understand why people insist otherwise.

Sure you won't win 1v1 cs an XWing, but should 8 points beat 13?

Low number TIEs are viable. I don't understand why people insist otherwise.

Sure you won't win 1v1 cs an XWing, but should 8 points beat 13?

Say hello to Yavaris and double blue AA

Low number TIEs are viable. I don't understand why people insist otherwise.

Sure you won't win 1v1 cs an XWing, but should 8 points beat 13?

Say hello to Yavaris and double blue AA

There is so much wrong with a blanket statement like that I don't know where to begin.

Its AA, without modification, on average takes three turns, or at best two, to kill you. Less if you can manipulate obstruction.

Why can't you have your ship provide AA support?

If Yavaris is positioned to AA your squadrons, why aren't your ships positioned to hit its flank.

Why not send in one or two fighters at a time so you don't let your opponent abuse your squadrons' biggest weakness.

Yavaris is just one title on one ship type that would make it more difficult to engage enemy squadrons on your terms.

Put it this way, for the same reasoning why you don't like TIEs, why do people take Nebulons when Demolisher is a thing?

Here's the answer: There are always things you can do to help mitigate your weaknesses and their strengths.

Low number TIEs are viable. I don't understand why people insist otherwise.

Sure you won't win 1v1 cs an XWing, but should 8 points beat 13?

Say hello to Yavaris and double blue AA

There is so much wrong with a blanket statement like that I don't know where to begin.

Its AA, without modification, on average takes three turns, or at best two, to kill you. Less if you can manipulate obstruction.

Why can't you have your ship provide AA support?

If Yavaris is positioned to AA your squadrons, why aren't your ships positioned to hit its flank.

Why not send in one or two fighters at a time so you don't let your opponent abuse your squadrons' biggest weakness.

Yavaris is just one title on one ship type that would make it more difficult to engage enemy squadrons on your terms.

Put it this way, for the same reasoning why you don't like TIEs, why do people take Nebulons when Demolisher is a thing?

Here's the answer: There are always things you can do to help mitigate your weaknesses and their strengths.

It was partially sarcasm.

But...I play Yavaris very aggressively, and I always take AA shots because I see it as a better investment in damage than 3 reds. And I get to shoot multiple squads. I also play a hammer and anvil approach with my fleet deployment, so you might flank Yavaris, but you are now flanked by my QTC Raymus MC80 Battle Cruiser, and I'm going to put the hurt on you. If you manage to kill Yavaris, I likely still have my squads in position to deal some damage. Demo is not in my local meta, so I never have to worry about it. And if I do, I can one shot it with the MC80 at medium range. Or swarm it with bombers.

In short, playing a few TIEs against me will die immediately. I value my bombers being able to hit their target extremely high so I fully utilize all of my upgrades on my ships. If you take 10 squads, that's a different story.