40 minutes ago, Democratus said:

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.

If you think a newly minted 400 point Rebel fleet can do anything else more useful against a 500 point full loaded veteran Imperial fleet, I'm all ears. Seriously, I'd love to be able to offer this player something more fun and hopeful to undertake with his fleet at this point.

I just don't see how you get that one player (or his opponents) excited by telling him that, for the next few rounds, he's probably best off running away at a zero-stakes battle. Anything else would be suicide -- he can't beat a 500 point veteran fleet, and every ship he gets killed in the process is slowing down his eventual build up from 400 to 500 points. Even if he destroys some of the opponent's ships, the Imperials are in such an economically dominant position that they un-scar effectively for free. So why risk engagement when only the Rebel player can lose anything?

Even if I LOVE the extra depth and decision-making and short-term vs long-term decisions and narrative element that come with the campaign (hint: I do, and I enthusiastically post round-by-round narrative updates of our campaign for the group and the FLGS), I could still really not like the fact that the best course of option (if not the only course) is for some underdog fleets to literally not play Armada at all (by going total avoidance). I can thematically understand and appreciate what is happening, while still thinking it's a **** shame that that player cannot PLAY ARMADA during these portions of the ARMADA campaign. Playing Twilight Imerium or Eclipse is fun, but this is ultimately an Armada campaign and it's ashame that a big chunk of the strategic situations strongly incentivize underdog fleets to not play. The tactical and strategic between-round planning of CC isn't deep enough or satisfying enough to entirely replace the satisfaction of the actual games of Armada played inbetween. So when one player is not getting to play those games of Armada, I don't think we can fault them for losing enthusiasm. You guys: "Come on man... you're not cut out for the campaign setting! If you can't find full sufficient satisfaction in the two very simple between-round decisions we make collectively as a team (because that's all you get to do this round and next), you shouldn't be playing Armada in a campaign setting!" Seriously, get out of here with this kind of nonsense.

I dunno what's more fun: to come set up and then pack up knowing you won't roll any dice and that your battle won't change anything (other than deepening the pockets of the already obscenely rich Imperials) OR to get your hopelessly outclassed 400 point rookie fleet slapped around by an immune-to-scarring 500 point veteran Imperial fleet. Both sound pretty miserable. One is an utterly boring waste of your time but slowly crawls you to a better situation (perhaps weeks away), the other is more exciting but ensures your fleet won't claw its way up to competitive any time soon. I think I can still like CC, still appreciate the campaign aspects of it, and still find this to be an unfortunate situation that threatens to kill the enthusiasm of one or two of our underdog players.

As has been stated before. If their enthusiasm is being killed, they may not be suited for campaign play.

To guarantee a battle with even sides play a standard battle.

Meanwhile, we will be working on great narrative tales for the last stands, desperate escapes, and outright trouncings that happen in our campaign. Lopsided campaign play is best for people who can enjoy playing a losing game and playing against-the-odds strategic options.

A strategic economic campaign that doesn't reward repeated victories is a game where victory and loss don't matter.

Yeah, I looked it over and it appears that I have already addressed everything you said in your last post AllWings, and while I respect that you find this an issue, rather than simply quote myself over and over I think it is time we agree to disagree like gentlemen!

I see a lot of people mentioning the Empire is dominating their campaigns. We also know that there there is a clear discrepancy in the basic setup rules for Bases/Outpost. Given that setting up completely alternating ('Method A') seems to lead to a fairly substantial Imperial resource advantage, I wonder how many people who are reporting Empire dominance used Method A vs Method B?

23 hours ago, Uncle_Joe said:

I see a lot of people mentioning the Empire is dominating their campaigns. We also know that there there is a clear discrepancy in the basic setup rules for Bases/Outpost. Given that setting up completely alternating ('Method B') seems to lead to a fairly substantial Imperial resource advantage, I wonder how many people who are reporting Empire dominance used Method B vs Method A?

We did method B - Empire is winning 4-1 and ahead in resources. Not sure if the base placings have influenced this all that much though as three of our four losses (we're Rebels) were attacks against Imperial bases and we underestimated the power of the Dark side effects of the Base Defense objectives.

A = each rebel places 2 stickers in a go

B = each rebel places only 1 sticker before alternating.

That's the original a/b from the rules sub.

#slightlyconfused

I don't see how planning to minimise losses and hyper out if necessary means go into a match planning to roll no dice. There are *always* refit points available towards unscarring squadrons and ships should a unit die early.

On 1/2/2017 at 9:04 PM, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I dunno what's more fun: to come set up and then pack up knowing you won't roll any dice and that your battle won't change anything (other than deepening the pockets of the already obscenely rich Imperials) OR to get your hopelessly outclassed 400 point rookie fleet slapped around by an immune-to-scarring 500 point veteran Imperial fleet. Both sound pretty miserable. One is an utterly boring waste of your time but slowly crawls you to a better situation (perhaps weeks away), the other is more exciting but ensures your fleet won't claw its way up to competitive any time soon. I think I can still like CC, still appreciate the campaign aspects of it, and still find this to be an unfortunate situation that threatens to kill the enthusiasm of one or two of our underdog players.

I'd suggest to adapt your campaign to your group. For example, you could allow o ther players in the team borrow ships or squadrons to the rookie fleet. Or perhaps you could rule that there is an extra 100 resource points as "war effort", usable by a team only once during the campaign.

On 1/5/2017 at 9:15 AM, Hedgehobbit said:

Therefore, I would suggest that if playing a 4-player campaign (or 2-player) that the team with the most campaign points be the one to declare the initial attack.

I would amend this to: If you are within three points, the losing player gets to choose to attack first or second, otherwise choose attacks normally but have the leading team chose their fleets first.

You don't want to give too much edge to a team that's only barely ahead.

5 hours ago, Green Knight said:

A = each rebel places 2 stickers in a go

B = each rebel places only 1 sticker before alternating.

That's the original a/b from the rules sub.

#slightlyconfused

Yeah, I have it backwards in my post lol. Sorry for the confusion!

I feel that the amount of resource points gained each turn especially with the raids is a bit high. There should be more of a grind to get to 500 point fleets. Both sides for the most point were at this level by turn 2/3. We are doing turns 4/5 tomorrow and 5 of the 6 fleets are at 500 points with little or no scaring. Imps on th attack with CP at 4 vs 5.