I think the hyperlane raid cf to show of force has a large part to play in this. These missions are vastly different propositions for both teams.

for what it's worth, our 2 player campaign is currently 4-0 to the Imps.

He can field nearly 500 sized fleets, but always has a scarred ship or a few scarred squads. Our battles have been close affairs with no wipeouts, which has meant he can recover well enough. I, on the other hand, am swimming in resources. It will likely come down to me declaring an all in when I reach 5 points.

12 hours ago, Tirion said:

this guy gets it....

Hehe, so very very true.

Can really see why BigKahuna is THE Big Kahuna. You've put perspective on what CC should really be about - telling a Star Wars story.

This is what made all those games of Battlefleet Gothic back in the day so riveting. We were creating our own story - our own little part in the greater war in the Gothic Sector.

Most of this has already been said but I'll chime in with my thoughts after two rounds (we're Rebels).

The base defense missions are hard to beat as first player - really hard. The Ion cannon mullered one of our rebel fleets on turn two, an extra 15 blue AS dice (5x TIE fighters for Fighter Wing) was key in another base defense where we were first player and the Armed Station gives an extra activation and some nice Red dice.

In all six battles so far the defender has won. Four Base defenses, one Show of Force and Minefields.

If you want to strave the Empire of resources you need to take Corellia on turn 1 or 2 - we failed so will switched strategy for turn 3 to going for unoccupied planets which have easier objectives.

Both Special Assaults are really hard but the Empire one is much easier to pull off some resources. We won a defense of SoF in turn 2 but lost both stations, they die really easily to Kittens and ISDs. We haven't run Hyperlane Raid yet as at best we'll only get 40 resource points and likely lose overall - possibly if the 3rd match-up looks favourable and it hasn't so far!

• ISDs are really tough to kill but fortunately you only need a Mov of +1 to win not a tabling - adjust your tactics accordingly (easier said than done)

• If you're getting 45 refit points per turn that is 90 points of stuff you can afford to lose every battle - adjust your tactics accordingly (easier said than done)

• Spend your resource points wisely - it may be better to upgrade your fleet rather than unscarring some stuff.

We're losing 4-1 at the moment and are only slightly behind on resources - I like how the campaign tries to balance things to stop one side running away with the game. The Empire are wasting lots of refit points whilst we are using all of ours. One of the Empire fleets is will now be wasting resources as it is up to 500 points. (Mine is on 495) and the other four fleets are at similar levels but with a few more scarred Rebel ships.

Round three will be key - if we can win a couple of battles and avoid losing a +2 CP base we're right back in it. Key is getting fleets up to 500pts so that if either side call the All-out-assault we'll be fairly evenly matched.

I think for next campaign the Rebels need to attack two neutral planets on turn 1 as the objectives are much easier.

You only get 5 extra ties. Probably a typo.

The ion cannon is murder of coupled with strategic and some nice rogues.

I've won 1 base assault, but only barely, and against a weakened opponent and with a fleet optimized for assaults.

2 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

You only get 5 extra ties. Probably a typo.

The ion cannon is murder of coupled with strategic and some nice rogues.

I've won 1 base assault, but only barely, and against a weakened opponent and with a fleet optimized for assaults.

Fixed, thanks - typo.

Optimising fleets for specific roles is important. Mine was to specifically counter SoF (it worked just 80-40 pts and all his fleet less the ISD scarred. I didn't count on gunnery teams on an ISD and I didn't split the stations otherwise it might have been 40-80) - I'm now geared up to take on their best fleet but even then I think I can only do it if I attack a neutral planet.

Rebels can hypotetically do a bum rush and take 2 bases on round 1.

Congratulations, you probably broke the campaign.

On the other hand, if both assaults fail you've probably crippled the rebels.

Congratulations, you probably broke the campaign.

I'm exaggerating slightly, but...general observation: The earlier an imbalance occurs, the harder it's to regain momentum. CC is written to be self-correcting, but it can't quite account for early, skewed results.

It might not be a bad idea to ban base assaults on round 1 (house rule oc).

Rieekan does impact this a bit.

We played our first round last night. Rebels won their first attack and their defence, Imperials defended their base at Sabering.

The first rebel attack they won, but both fleets only suffered relatively light losses and will be ok to refit and expand a bit in the next round.

But the Imp fleet attacking got wiped out. EVERYTHING scarred. Its going to be interesting for them next round.

But in defending Saberhing we were basically set up to return the favour against Rieekan. Going into turn 4 he had lost half his squads, a transport and the rest of the squads were hurting badly. In turn 4 more ships were getting hammered hard including the assault frigate. But hypering out, apparently means these guys are no longer scarred. So even though we had a similar outcome to Game 2, the rebel fleet is basically still full strength plus can expand with their resource points that their friends secured.....

58 minutes ago, Ophion said:

Rieekan does impact this a bit.

We played our first round last night. Rebels won their first attack and their defence, Imperials defended their base at Sabering.

The first rebel attack they won, but both fleets only suffered relatively light losses and will be ok to refit and expand a bit in the next round.

But the Imp fleet attacking got wiped out. EVERYTHING scarred. Its going to be interesting for them next round.

But in defending Saberhing we were basically set up to return the favour against Rieekan. Going into turn 4 he had lost half his squads, a transport and the rest of the squads were hurting badly. In turn 4 more ships were getting hammered hard including the assault frigate. But hypering out, apparently means these guys are no longer scarred. So even though we had a similar outcome to Game 2, the rebel fleet is basically still full strength plus can expand with their resource points that their friends secured.....

That's because that interpretation of Hyper retreat & Rieekan is just silly.

Perhaps it's the correct one, but it's still silly.

And don't give me no Intedictor crap. That's a VERY soft counter for this

I always assumed rieekan keeps being considered destroyed.

3 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

I always assumed rieekan keeps being considered destroyed.

Me too.

But I've heard an argument that since he ran away, the status phase destruction doesn't occur.

I don't buy it, but not everyone agrees.

5 hours ago, Kendraam said:

We're losing 4-1 at the moment and are only slightly behind on resources - I like how the campaign tries to balance things to stop one side running away with the game. The Empire are wasting lots of refit points whilst we are using all of ours. One of the Empire fleets is will now be wasting resources as it is up to 500 points. (Mine is on 495) and the other four fleets are at similar levels but with a few more scarred Rebel ships.

I'm not really seeing how the campaign balances, or tries to balance, the run-away situation. "Wasting refit points" or "wasting resource points" is hardly a penalty to the winning side, it just means they have everything they want and their stuff is not getting destroyed. The longer they are banking excess resource points, the longer their fleet will be indefinitely immune to scarring, allowing them to play more aggressively and confidently, even if somehow the trailing team finds ways to wreck their fleets or bases (unlikely). This does nothing to help the team (or fleet) that is trailing behind, who may still be struggling economically to keep up with the demands of scarring and lost battles.

As I see it, there are three things that could be interpreted as being intended to help the trailing team in a run-away, but it's not clear to me that they do much to alleviate the situation:

(1) The team with fewer Campaign Points launches the first (and third, in three player) assault. This actually seems to be a disadvantage to me, since in a two player scenario the leading side will decide the match-up of fleets every round. In a three player campaign, it means the trailing team is playing offense twice and defense only once, but offense is far harder (especially since in CC, a 0-0 "6/5" win is worth a full campaign point to the defender, so attackers are really forced to be aggressive or else give up a free campaign point to the defender). In both 4 and 6 player campaigns, it feels like declaring the first assault is actually a disadvantage, yet it falls to the trailing team.

(2) Players can reset fleets. This is a good rule for a team with a player or players whose fleets are really struggling. The problem, though, is that taking this option gives +1 free Campaign Point to the opposing team, means you're now choosing from a B-List of Commanders, and will likely force that new, one-upgrade-per-ship 400pt list against ~500 point lists with multiple upgrades. That's about a hopeless scenario, so now that new fleet has to spend at least a round or two just running away hoping to stay in tact long enough to build up to a competitive level.

(3) Final Assault. This possibility lets one team launch the final assault in a desperate bid to win the campaign against a team that is ahead in fleet points. However, you have to be within four points of the goal to launch this, which means your "runaway" opponent has to be only 1-3 points from the goal, and thus only 1-3 points ahead of you. So, for instance, with a campaign that has started 4-1, it means that losing team has to somehow never fall further behind in the Campaign Point race to still have a Final Assault option.


I think what the campaign is lacking is a real means for teams trailing in an early runaway to have any hope of coming back. They'll quickly find themselves up against superior fleets (eg 480 point fleets against 400-420 point fleets for a round) and will soon be on the losing end of a resource war. That team that springs out with a big resource advantage (and thus a big fleet point advantage) can threaten bases effectively early and will soon be immune to scarring (since they'll have resource and refit points with which there only purpose will be unscarring, so they are effectively entirely immune to attrition by Round 3). On the other hand, the trailing team may be in a situation where they are struggling with scarred ships and having to devote resource points to continually un-scarring ships from the lopside battles they are fighting. They may eventually be able to claw up to 500pt fleets, especially if they run away during some early rounds, but this will cede a lot of Campaign Points and possibly bases to the opponent. With base assaults being so damned hard in CC, especially that Ion Cannon, there's really no chance for a team with fleets <500 points to take bases from a team with 500pt fleets that are immune to scarring given their resource bank.

10 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Out of curiosity, which Faction is dominating your campaign?

In our campaign the Empire is currently dominating. We've decided to play it out and see what the long game does to the balance.

Just now, CaribbeanNinja said:

In our campaign the Empire is currently dominating. We've decided to play it out and see what the long game does to the balance.

Thanks. This seems to be a common trend from the posts I've read too, and is certainly the trend in my own group.

36 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Thanks. This seems to be a common trend from the posts I've read too, and is certainly the trend in my own group.

40 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

In our campaign the Empire is currently dominating. We've decided to play it out and see what the long game does to the balance.

I don't know that I've read of any examples of the Rebels running away with it yet (or even putting up a good fight, honestly). Empire is killing it in our campaign as well...

The Imperials conceded our first campaign after the Rebels were up 8-0 in campaign points.

Are ships being destroyed instantly or before turn 4/5? In my latest match I hyperspaced out once it was apparent the attack was not going to succeed. Two small ships and a few squadrons were scarred, but I knew I had to limit my losses if I wasn't going to win. It isn't like a tournament where there a 9-1 loss will sink me for the rest of the event.

30 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I'm not really seeing how the campaign balances, or tries to balance, the run-away situation. "Wasting refit points" or "wasting resource points" is hardly a penalty to the winning side, it just means they have everything they want and their stuff is not getting destroyed. The longer they are banking excess resource points, the longer their fleet will be indefinitely immune to scarring, allowing them to play more aggressively and confidently, even if somehow the trailing team finds ways to wreck their fleets or bases (unlikely). This does nothing to help the team (or fleet) that is trailing behind, who may still be struggling economically to keep up with the demands of scarring and lost battles.

Wasting resources are indeed a cap on the run away. The gap will never get greater than 100pts. If you can close that gap, without having to throw your fleet away, then you will have balanced the campaign out. It is not like every time you lose one side gets 100pts farther away.

As I see it, there are three things that could be interpreted as being intended to help the trailing team in a run-away, but it's not clear to me that they do much to alleviate the situation:

(1) The team with fewer Campaign Points launches the first (and third, in three player) assault. This actually seems to be a disadvantage to me, since in a two player scenario the leading side will decide the match-up of fleets every round. In a three player campaign, it means the trailing team is playing offense twice and defense only once, but offense is far harder (especially since in CC, a 0-0 "6/5" win is worth a full campaign point to the defender, so attackers are really forced to be aggressive or else give up a free campaign point to the defender). In both 4 and 6 player campaigns, it feels like declaring the first assault is actually a disadvantage, yet it falls to the trailing team.

You are incorrect. This is a HUGE advantage. If you are behind, you need to expect to take losses in your next couple of matches. Run away, Hyperlane your whole fleet out on turn 4, and just don't fall any farther behind. If the "Ahead" enemy was allowed to declare 2 assaults this could mean losing 2 bases, which would indeed cause you to fall insurmountably behind. Instead, they only declare one attack. This attack might be a Hyperlane/Show of Force, which you lose nothing. If they attack a base, you hopefully can win without taking heavy losses, if not, hyperspace out, lose a base, and know that NEXT turn with 100 fleet points in the bag you will not be roughly even with them on strength.

(2) Players can reset fleets. This is a good rule for a team with a player or players whose fleets are really struggling. The problem, though, is that taking this option gives +1 free Campaign Point to the opposing team, means you're now choosing from a B-List of Commanders, and will likely force that new, one-upgrade-per-ship 400pt list against ~500 point lists with multiple upgrades. That's about a hopeless scenario, so now that new fleet has to spend at least a round or two just running away hoping to stay in tact long enough to build up to a competitive level.

Back to point 1, if they assault a base, and you have 3 weakened fleets, the worst of the three can go on defense and suicide for the defense and then reset. Then the other 2 fleets will be spared and can bump up to near 500pt fleets, and the defender can reset and assault on the next turn, taking a turn 4 hyperspace lot to catch up to his compatriots.

(3) Final Assault. This possibility lets one team launch the final assault in a desperate bid to win the campaign against a team that is ahead in fleet points. However, you have to be within four points of the goal to launch this, which means your "runaway" opponent has to be only 1-3 points from the goal, and thus only 1-3 points ahead of you. So, for instance, with a campaign that has started 4-1, it means that losing team has to somehow never fall further behind in the Campaign Point race to still have a Final Assault option.

With all fleets being even, take out unoccupied territories to increase your CP while using skilled spacers to give you favorable objectives. As long as you can hit 8pts you will have not only a slim shot of winning, but a very very good chance.

I think what the campaign is lacking is a real means for teams trailing in an early runaway to have any hope of coming back.

I think you are jumping to conclusions.

They'll quickly find themselves up against superior fleets (eg 480 point fleets against 400-420 point fleets for a round) and will soon be on the losing end of a resource war. That team that springs out with a big resource advantage (and thus a big fleet point advantage) can threaten bases effectively early and will soon be immune to scarring (since they'll have resource and refit points with which there only purpose will be unscarring, so they are effectively entirely immune to attrition by Round 3).

Once you hit 500 fleet points this more or less becomes the case for either side. Being the second to hit 500 fleet points is not game losing, it just means you have to take a different approach than "kill all their ships, every time."

On the other hand, the trailing team may be in a situation where they are struggling with scarred ships and having to devote resource points to continually un-scarring ships from the lopside battles they are fighting.

You only need to unscarr ships you lose. It is very very possible to not lose any ships when you aren't trying to "kill all their ships, every time."

They may eventually be able to claw up to 500pt fleets, especially if they run away during some early rounds, but this will cede a lot of Campaign Points and possibly bases to the opponent. With base assaults being so damned hard in CC, especially that Ion Cannon, there's really no chance for a team with fleets <500 points to take bases from a team with 500pt fleets that are immune to scarring given their resource bank.

"A lot of campaign points and bases" need not be more than 1 or 2 a round, more than enough to stay within the All Out Assault range of your opponents, especially if they are trying to base assault with a 50/50 success rate and you focus solely on picking up any campaign point you can get, avoiding hard to win base assaults.

Allwings, I tried to offer my counterpoints to your assessment because I pretty much disagree with it point by point. My consideration is that people simply are not adjusting well to the fact that in order to play the Rebels succesfully in campaign you need to, well, you know, play them like Rebels.

They start with less resources, they don't get as many bases, their ships don't typically perform as well naked, they need to find another way to win other than trading blows face to face with the empire. You know, like every insurrection in history. Thus far in Armada we have played mock battles where two even strength fleets met and the winner was whoever killed the most. Now we have two fleets that will never be perfectly even playing where the outcome of that individual battle doesn't matter nearly as much as the overarching campaign.

It's a hard mental shift to make, but I think when we talk about if there is a point of no return we need to make sure we aren't jumping to conclusions based of a frame of thought that doesn't fit.

4 minutes ago, shmitty said:

The Imperials conceded our first campaign after the Rebels were up 8-0 in campaign points.

It makes me feel better to hear this, honestly. Seems like the majority of current campaigns are going the Empire way, just needed to know there was hope out there!

19 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

*Long post above

Spot on Broba - everything I wanted to say but haven't had the time to articulate properly!

I'll just add these comments :-

• in six player game choosing your matches is massive as said above. You can also pretty much decide which fleets will fight. Choose your first assault carefully, aim to draw out a particular enemy fleet - if they pick the one you want then you can choose the final two match ups; if not then at least you can choose the final two. Be flexible, think of different outcomes. Going first on deciding matches is a big advantage; as said above - you only have one defense and if it's a base defense you should be winning it, if it's SoF give them a station but make sure you win and bleed their fleet in doing so. Then build a base.
• choose where the battles are fought - if you're losing you choose 2 out of 3 locations. If you choose an enemy base (yes it's going to be tough) the reward is huge, no base for them, lots of scarred ships and you can build a base plus campaign point/s. If you lose, all they get is a cp. If you want to increase your chances of winning go for a neutral planet but be careful they can build a base if you lose so maybe choose a worthless one if you want to minimise the risk.
  • If you want to run Hyperlane Raid (and I've not had the balls to try it yet) aim to leave it as the last match-up. If match-ups go right for you their worst fleet for defending this may be left and you can capitalise, if not then run a neutral attack.
• Don't spend all your points unscarring stuff - go for upgrades, sure if you have scarred Unique squads then they'll likely need unscarring but leave that CR-90 or MC-30 scarred for one turn. Move the upgrades somewhere else so if it dies you only lose the ship plus it'll make your other ships better!

As Broba says, fight like a Rebel - choose your fights carefully, run away if needed, go for a mov of +1 to get that victory. Trying to table the Empire isn't going to get you anywhere unless the opportunity aries.

So what I'm hearing is Rebels need to "play like Rebels" and runaway for awhile as needed, opt not to fight when possible, and get up to 500 points.

That's great and all, but it's boring . No one wants to wait a week or two for their game, show up, and then have to declare a futile Hyperlane Raid, deploy hidden in their own zone, and then Hyperspace out Turn 4 without rolling dice. Yes, this cedes 0 Campaign Points (and 40 Resources) to the Imperials, but it is boring as hell and will kill the campaign group off fast. Some players may understand the subtle strategy and "long game" here, but a lot of player's aren't going to want to waste that much of their time for a thoroughly unsatisfying non-game (waiting for the game, travel, set-up, going through the motions for four turns, and then pack-up and bookeeping...all without playing the actual game).

Also, you're assuming that the Rebels will have an advantage once they finally catch up to 500 points. Even if they only go down a handful of campaign points in their rounds of running and hiding and avoiding the actual game as they try to get up to 500 points, they're still starting from behind and there's no promise that they'll have an advantage in the 500 point game. Assuming the game is a balanced at 500 points, Rebels will now win about 50% of the games competing with their 500pt Imperial counterparts. This means that, on average, the Imperials will still win because of their early--even if mitigated--lead in the campaign. The Imperials will also have deeper coffers once the "real game" of 500-500 starts, so they'll be more immune to scarring costs (if it even matters at that point). If the Imperials use those early round leads of superior fleets to wipe Rebel bases off of the board, the situation could be a bit hairier for the Rebels (will take longer to get to 500, will have less protection against scarring when they do, and they will probably lack any strategic advantages lack SpyNets).


I understand what you're saying. I see how it still leaves a route for a team (typically Rebels) that is trailing big after the first Round or two. But I really am suspect that it's enough of a boost to help offset the disadvantages enough.

The things you point to don't suggest that there are techniques the trailing team can use to get ahead. Instead, you're pointing to ways in which the trailing team can try to minimize falling hopelessly behind in Campaign Points and strategic assets while they spend time getting caught up in Fleet Points.

"Here's how to avoid losing the game while you spend the extra time necessary to get to get on even footing with the enemy fleets--at which point you'll still be behind but hopefully not by too much" isn't the most inspiring sort of advice.

If you are going to play a campaign, you should play with people who understand the long game and enjoy it. That's how an economic campaign works.

If you have two players who insist on a full-out throw down every turn, put them on opposite sides and have them fight every round.

2 minutes ago, Democratus said:

If you are going to play a campaign, you should play with people who understand the long game and enjoy it. That's how an economic campaign works.

If you have two players who insist on a full-out throw down every turn, put them on opposite sides and have them fight every round.

Cant we admit it's a design flaw when the best option for the losing team is to intentionally go launch their economic mission every round with the intent of NOT PLAYING THE GAME? In that match-up, there is no reason for either player to even show up for that round's game. If you've got the worst Rebel fleet, you might be looking at two or three rounds of literally not getting to play the game.

I think someone can DISLIKE that and still appreciate economic campaigns.

24 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So what I'm hearing is Rebels need to "play like Rebels" and runaway for awhile as needed, opt not to fight when possible, and get up to 500 points.

That's great and all, but it's boring . No one wants to wait a week or two for their game, show up, and then have to declare a futile Hyperlane Raid, deploy hidden in their own zone, and then Hyperspace out Turn 4 without rolling dice. Yes, this cedes 0 Campaign Points (and 40 Resources) to the Imperials, but it is boring as hell and will kill the campaign group off fast. Some players may understand the subtle strategy and "long game" here, but a lot of player's aren't going to want to waste that much of their time for a thoroughly unsatisfying non-game (waiting for the game, travel, set-up, going through the motions for four turns, and then pack-up and bookeeping...all without playing the actual game).

Also, you're assuming that the Rebels will have an advantage once they finally catch up to 500 points. Even if they only go down a handful of campaign points in their rounds of running and hiding and avoiding the actual game as they try to get up to 500 points, they're still starting from behind and there's no promise that they'll have an advantage in the 500 point game. Assuming the game is a balanced at 500 points, Rebels will now win about 50% of the games competing with their 500pt Imperial counterparts. This means that, on average, the Imperials will still win because of their early--even if mitigated--lead in the campaign. The Imperials will also have deeper coffers once the "real game" of 500-500 starts, so they'll be more immune to scarring costs (if it even matters at that point). If the Imperials use those early round leads of superior fleets to wipe Rebel bases off of the board, the situation could be a bit hairier for the Rebels (will take longer to get to 500, will have less protection against scarring when they do, and they will probably lack any strategic advantages lack SpyNets).


I understand what you're saying. I see how it still leaves a route for a team (typically Rebels) that is trailing big after the first Round or two. But I really am suspect that it's enough of a boost to help offset the disadvantages enough.

The things you point to don't suggest that there are techniques the trailing team can use to get ahead. Instead, you're pointing to ways in which the trailing team can try to minimize falling hopelessly behind in Campaign Points and strategic assets while they spend time getting caught up in Fleet Points.

"Here's how to avoid losing the game while you spend the extra time necessary to get to get on even footing with the enemy fleets--at which point you'll still be behind but hopefully not by too much" isn't the most inspiring sort of advice.

My guess is that 9 times out of 10 this won't matter. If both teams score 1 win first round the footing is going to be much more even and drastic measures will most likely not be required.

I am not saying that every single campaign you play will require 2 turns of hiding, and I am certainly not saying that the Rebels will have an advantage at even strength (though from the tournament data you could potentially infer that they are the stronger overall faction at the moment)

If Rebels do a hyperlane raid turn 1 that scores them 120 resources and Imps do a Show of Force that nets them 120 resources then fleets are going to pretty darn close to even strength, and this whole topic, this entire thread, will not apply. If the Rebels manage 40, 60, or 80 resourcess without all 3 of their fleets getting tabled it should still be pretty even by the end of round 2 so long as they don't get tabled there.

This thread is simply trying to determine if there is a "point of no return" at which point you may as well concede because there is no chance of victory. Your opinion is that there is, mine is that there isn't. You base this off the fact that you would rather throw your scarred fleet at a base assault and hope for a big win because waiting, recouping, and repairing makes for a "boring game." That's valid. Won't argue it doesn't. But you can be up front about it. Tell your opponent ahead of time, "Hey bud, you kicked the sh*t out of us last turn, my gameplan is going to be to run and hide for 4 turns and hyperspace out. So bring some extra models when you come, let's get that boring stuff out of the way fast and then I got this 5 arquitens fleet I want to try so we can play a bloodbath game after our CC match so we don't come all this way for nothing."

It's not a design flaw just because someone dislikes the design.

And you have presented a false option if the only thing you think you can do is do an offensive economic mission with the intent of a turn 4 hyperspace.

I get that you don't like the mechanic. It's sad that you are unhappy with a part of the new game expansion. I'm on the other side of the coin. It's exactly what I wanted from a campaign - including the real chance for one side to have great difficulties if it loses too many battles.

This is a narrative experience.

2 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I think someone can DISLIKE that and still appreciate economic campaigns.

Actually, I know he's catching flak here, but this is a fair enough statement. Its also probably a sign that if players dislike this kind of play, that a campaign really isn't for them. The campaign puts a strategical spin on the events of what is primarily a tactical game. A good analogy is the difference between an engagement and an overarching campaign in WWII. Most battles saw one side or the other disengaging at some point. The really decisive battles tended to happen because one side or even both were forced into it, sometimes by sheer accidents of weather. Plenty of battles were indecisive. Translate these overarching decision into a campaign setting like CC and you've got a competition with a different set of circumstances lurking in the background with good questions on how much to risk and when to risk it. Players that are into a campaign are looking to integrate those kinds of decisions. Players that are just looking to brawl are not really going to find a campaign style a good fit. That's alright. To each, his own.