I'd prefer 2 or 3, then 1, and lastly 4.

If you are looking for one more I would be excited to hop in and play either side. I am in California, have played Emfrank in the past and felt we were pretty evenly matched, and will have ample free time through the entire month of February as I will be working from home.

Caveats being that I will be working from home because I have a newborn which may require sudden pauses of games due to emergency barf/diarrhea/crying/feeding requirements on my part.

I would prefer to play with six if we can work it out . How would we balance it for eight? What is the proposed number of victory points? Or are we considering rotating three fleets in each round and one sits out from each side.

That puts me preferring option one, and being OK with two or three depending on how we handle it.

Thanks for doing the organizational part. It's like herding nerfs.

Well that is eight if we choose to go that route, making the roster below, still with the option to swap deDios for SkyCake (or BrobaFett to let SkyCake keep his faction preference).

Empire

JJs Juggernaut

Rekkon
BrobaFett
SkyCake

Rebel

BiggsIRL

Fanfan

emfrank72
deDios

I would prefer to play with six if we can work it out . How would we balance it for eight? What is the proposed number of victory points? Or are we considering rotating three fleets in each round and one sits out from each side.

That puts me preferring option one, and being OK with two or three depending on how we handle it.

Thanks for doing the organizational part. It's like herding nerfs.

If memory serves, four players go to 9 campaign points and six go to 12, so I would guess we set eight at 14-16. A bigger problem might be Rebel presence saturation since they would be starting with 8 markers covering over a quarter of the map, though I do not know if or how much of a problem that might be. With 25 planets available, it is still theoretically possible for the map to accommodate max Imperial base and max Rebel bases/outposts. Might very well become impossible to run Special Assaults well before that point.

Additionally, we may just have to give each side's Grand Admiral additional power to make an online campaign run smoothly. Cannot have 8 people waiting for one guy who happened to be offline for a day or two. He could just come back to find the Grand Admiral had assigned him to a particular battle. Such a player would lose out on all the strategy discussion, but that might be the price or running everything expeditiously. The Grand Admirals would probably have to take control of all fleets for any All Out Offensive as well, perhaps supplemented by whomever could also be online at the scheduled time.

My squad leader from Operation Eastwind 8 had the best modification of that saying: herding frogs. You can kind of get cats to go collectively where you want. Frogs would just be a random explosion of amphibians.

8 players! Keep things the way they are. An uphill battle for the Rebellion could be fun.

I'm good to switch over if needed

Probably should stick to six for balance

My suggestion to go with 8 was so that each side would have one back-up player for its 3 fleets, who could also lead the strategical effort, not to go with 4 fleets on each side (something that would require a lot of rules adaptations)

If I am reading well the relative experience of each side, then I am in favor of Skycake switching.

So, 3>2>1>4 for me

Biggs and I could always go start our own campaign since it seems like no one wants to play with us

But seriously I didn't want to throw things off, I simply saw that there was an odd number and figured if it was needed I could hop in. I definitely don't want to bend the rules or anything. I would be happy to simply spectate through this one and catch another round when it comes around, which I am sure it will eventually.

While I like the idea of 8 I do understand the concerns as to the balance of the campaign, however I like everyone getting a chance to play. I say why not! Up VPs to 16, since the more crowded map will probably result in more base battles which have a potential for extra VPs.

My two credits worth, is that I've changed my tune. I would be interested in playing with eight. We may have to adjust the role of the grand admiral, but think that the rules would hold up pretty well. If the map gets crowded, there is always supply raids and show of force. If we're going to be the first campaign on vassal, let's do it with style.

My two credits worth, is that I've changed my tune. I would be interested in playing with eight. We may have to adjust the role of the grand admiral, but think that the rules would hold up pretty well. If the map gets crowded, there is always supply raids and show of force. If we're going to be the first campaign on vassal, let's do it with style.

What is being said, is if the map is crowded, there isn't Hyperspace Raids or Shows of Force... Because they have restrictions on where they can be

It's your turn Dras...

Are you kidding? I'd love to see an 8 player campaign played out....

For anything, it puts an impetus on using those missions quickly, because the longer you wait, the less likely you'll be able to use them... It puts impetus of force and tempo into the question of overall strategy....

This adds strategic depth to the game, alongside the tactical considerations you already have in the core rules...

I am all for this.

Never Mind then!

Party on Dras.

I am more in favor of a 3-fleet on each side plan, as the campaign has been mainly designed with that focus (2 attacks for the team behind in score, planet set-up ...)

But I think a spare player per side could help guaranteeing each turn can be played in a reasonable time. And my suggestion has been that this spare player would actually have the most weight in strategic / overall decisions to compensate for not 'owning' his own fleet.

But if the consensus is to go with 4 fleets on each side ... then I will follow the orders and get to the rendez-vous point !

The two emerging scenarios that I see now look like this to me:

1. If the guys that said they prefer six are willing to go eight, put me on Imperial to balance juggernaut and brobafett to rebel since he did not give a faction preference, and seems to have more matches under his belt. We would need an affirmative from skycake and fanfan.

2. If guys are adamant about six, then swap me and skycake with apologies to Biggs and BrotherFett.

It seems that most guys aren't worried about faction, but most people's opinion on the experience levels put me at making an imperial campaign list.

Awaiting further instructions... (or error correction).

im good with eight, i just have no idea how the balance will hold up and i would hate to get halfway through and have us all realize 8 doesn't work... does anyone have campaign experience??

I'm fine with 4 fleets per side but originally thought it would be 3 fleets per side with a backup player for each side. Another thought would be to have 4 fleets but only 3 fight per turn and rotate the reserve fleet each turn. This would allow everyone to take part 3 of 4 turns but maybe not mess up the balance of the campaign too much. That being said, I am still waiting for my copy of Correllian Conflict to arrive (it should arrive later this week with my Wave 5 order) and haven't had a chance to read the rules yet as I haven't seen them posted anywhere online yet. So it is entirely possible that my suggestion makes no sense.

I think you might have some space issues if you run 4 players to a side...won't it fill up with bases pretty quick?

And Vassal isnt set up for 8 players....

And Vassal isnt set up for 8 players....

It's barely set up for 6...which reminds me I need new graphics for player 5 and 6 buttons.

Also, GNight, I think we'll need a wider board for the all-out offensive. Thanks for your work on Vassal! We wouldn't need 8 player capability until the final all out offensive battle which could be 6-8 weeks away.

I am ok with emfrank's proposal as well (rotating 4 players per side with only 3 battles per round), but here's another thought regarding 4 players and 4 battles per turn;

I was thinking about the strategy map saturation issue and worked out the 'worst case scenario'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

With no rules adjustments and 4 players per team we have:

9 Imp bases

5 Reb bases

8 Reb outposts

22 total locations filled

3 open locations

The next turn, that leaves 3 locations for action. But since no one can build another base, this turn will require base assaults or special assaults (for which there are enough systems to declare). If some of these bases do fall, the conquering faction will not be able to build because they are already at their cap. Therefore the next round, there will be even more space (or possibly the same if two special assaults occur and the factions trade victories on the other two).

This game state would only occur if teams were very conservative in their assaulting the other faction bases and would take nearly halfway through the campaign to develop.

I had a plan for how to mitigate the changes brought on by 8 players, but the numbers don't seem to indicate that being necessary.

For the record, I do appreciate the concern for messing with the balance on our first outting and possibly hitting an impasse. However, I still think it would be worth it to try. (Give Biggs a chance! - and Broba too!) Either way I'm excited to play the game with you guys.

Keep your heads up men. Don't let an organizational delay dampen your parade. This is going to be fun!

Gah, just when I think there was no activity on this last night, it actually turns out FFG's notifications just crapped out again.

The majority of the sentiment is either in favor of an eight-player campaign or a willingness to give it a try. Having gone through the rules again with an eye toward eight-player play, here are my thoughts:

*The Grand Admiral will need more power. My first thought is to set a deadline for discussion, and after that the Grand Admiral starts assigning players. If you can be online for The Great Assigning, great, if not, you check the roster for your assigned battle and schedule it.

*With 8 players, the Rebels can easily block off all possible Show of Force locations with their initial base/outpost deployment. Not having prior campaign experience, I do not know how much of an issue this might be. We could play the restrictions as written, but evaluate their impact every turn and, if necessary, simply allow Show of Force against unoccupied planets that are in the system box or on hyperlanes. Another option could be to have eight players but keep the base cap restrictions as if we were eight. The downside there is reduced income. We would be sharing six players' worth of income between eight.

*If we get to an All Out Offensive, we delegate the fight down to two players on each side (each playing two fleets), primarily for scheduling convenience. If the stars align, and we can get six online, great, but we should definitely have a means of VoIP communication.

*Increase campaign point victory limit to 15 or 16.

Sounds like we should change our roster to this? It offsets our strongest player with (as far as I know) our weakest and gives everyone who expressed a preference their preferred faction.

Empire

JJs Juggernaut
Rekkon
SkyCake
deDios

Rebel

BiggsIRL
Fanfan
emfrank72
BrobaFett

If this all sounds fine, we can start fleet crafting and figuring out how we want to handle communication. Discord has been mentioned, and/or we could all swap e-mail addresses and go that route.

I have changed my mind. Let's have you guys play 6 - it keeps everything simpler. I'll bow out and form another CC (or get out of the hospital in a couple days and form a real life one).

Too much discussion. Get to playing already!

EDIT: I will be watching though (and maybe bothaning for the Rebel side if that is allowed).

Also, GNight, I think we'll need a wider board for the all-out offensive. Thanks for your work on Vassal! We wouldn't need 8 player capability until the final all out offensive battle which could be 6-8 weeks away.

I am ok with emfrank's proposal as well (rotating 4 players per side with only 3 battles per round), but here's another thought regarding 4 players and 4 battles per turn;

I was thinking about the strategy map saturation issue and worked out the 'worst case scenario'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

With no rules adjustments and 4 players per team we have:

9 Imp bases

5 Reb bases

8 Reb outposts

22 total locations filled

3 open locations

The next turn, that leaves 3 locations for action. But since no one can build another base, this turn will require base assaults or special assaults (for which there are enough systems to declare). If some of these bases do fall, the conquering faction will not be able to build because they are already at their cap. Therefore the next round, there will be even more space (or possibly the same if two special assaults occur and the factions trade victories on the other two).

This game state would only occur if teams were very conservative in their assaulting the other faction bases and would take nearly halfway through the campaign to develop.

I had a plan for how to mitigate the changes brought on by 8 players, but the numbers don't seem to indicate that being necessary.

For the record, I do appreciate the concern for messing with the balance on our first outting and possibly hitting an impasse. However, I still think it would be worth it to try. (Give Biggs a chance! - and Broba too!) Either way I'm excited to play the game with you guys.

Keep your heads up men. Don't let an organizational delay dampen your parade. This is going to be fun!

I'll be adding a few 9x3 maps to the Map Pack anyway, so you'll have a map by then.

The official module will not support more than 6 players, to keep down file size and clutter. But I can make you a custom one, fit for 8 players.