Hi,

some time ago, with the players from my group, we had a discussion about how we wanted our games to be more cinematic and varied.
But, in the other hand, we weren't satisfied with the various scenarios either FFG's or found on the internet.

From that moment, I had the idea of creating a tool to generate skirmish missions with a little bit of surprise and more variety, define a fixed setting to avoid total timeline messups and keep track of those games in a campaign-like system.

Here's the first draft of it. Feel free to give any advice, since it is totally WIP.
For now, the Scum faction ship lists are absolutely not done, since I need to study the lore of most of these ships.
I would also need some ideas for more secondary objectives.

The goal for the next version is to make an automated version of the Mission generator Table, to avoid all these Dice rolls. I want it to be one big "Generate Mission" button, and here you go, that's your briefing sheet

Thanks for any comments you can make.

And here's the file :
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vr99sp9s9m206o/Campaign%20b1.0.pdf?dl=0

I'm taking a look!

One problem that you may run into when playing these missions is a tendency for suicide runs on objectives. That kind of behavior is dangerous because it makes scenarios very tricky to balance, not as fun, and a suicide run is very often the best way to win a mission. Having named pilots be mortal helps limit that problem since players will not want to make suicide runs with named pilots, but you would certainly have that problem with generic pilots. It would be a good idea if you build in an incentive for players to keep their generic pilots alive.

One problem that you may run into when playing these missions is a tendency for suicide runs on objectives.

Edit : just came to me, maybe it's unclezr inthe text, Victory is still awarded throught standard skirmish rules. Secondary objectives are only added to this.

Babaganoosh is your man to talk to. We even just recorded our podcast last night (for next week) that talks about building campaigns and different things you can do or try.

Yeah, you should definitely go back and define how to determine who wins a mission. I assume it is whoever has more points at the end of the mission.

There are some places here where you should tighten up your language. For example the terrain placement column often defines placement for obstacles in terms such as 'R2 from edges'. That's not very clear - do you mean beyond range two of the edges, at exactly range two of the edges, or range two or greater of the edges? Leave no room for interpretation, or you'll eventually have players disagreeing about the meaning of your language.

I think that there are probably some balance concerns that are inherent with random objective, map, and deployment combinations, but those imbalances should at least get randomly distributed among players and games, so they may not be a huge concern.

One condition that could lead to repeated and regular imbalance is the ''assault on the flagship' squadron/map. The rebel transport is a tricky beast to fly when you're limited to a small (usually 60-90 point) fighter escort, since it is a support ship with no defensive weapons. If it loses its fighter escort, the Rebel transport has very limited options for defense. On the other hand, the Gozanti is much more capable of operating independently and with a limited fighter escort. So, pulling that condition as the rebel player could often be unfortunate.

Overall I think its a very interesting concept, but I think it could use a few tweaks. Nice work!

Yeah, you should definitely go back and define how to determine who wins a mission. I assume it is whoever has more points at the end of the mission.

There are some places here where you should tighten up your language. For example the terrain placement column often defines placement for obstacles in terms such as 'R2 from edges'. That's not very clear - do you mean beyond range two of the edges, at exactly range two of the edges, or range two or greater of the edges? Leave no room for interpretation, or you'll eventually have players disagreeing about the meaning of your language.

I think that there are probably some balance concerns that are inherent with random objective, map, and deployment combinations, but those imbalances should at least get randomly distributed among players and games, so they may not be a huge concern.

One condition that could lead to repeated and regular imbalance is the ''assault on the flagship' squadron/map. The rebel transport is a tricky beast to fly when you're limited to a small (usually 60-90 point) fighter escort, since it is a support ship with no defensive weapons. If it loses its fighter escort, the Rebel transport has very limited options for defense. On the other hand, the Gozanti is much more capable of operating independently and with a limited fighter escort. So, pulling that condition as the rebel player could often be unfortunate.

Overall I think its a very interesting concept, but I think it could use a few tweaks. Nice work!

Thank you for your constructive answers, yes I have a lot of work on wording (sometimes difficult as english isn't my native language). Yes, the one who has more points wins the mission, I just forgot to put the phrase down ^^ Also, I will think a bit more about that "flagship" bit, you may be right on this.