Okay so no surprise that I am not exactly satisfied with the Rebel victory condition. it seems too abstract and breaks theme with the anti-climatic results. Almost like this Robot Chicken clip (however in Robot Chicken it seems like the Rebels did more than what Rebels do in a standard game of Rebellion.)

So here is an idea to make the Rebel victory condition seem more thematic. Also I like the asymmetrical strategy aspect but I think an Axis and Allies version where Axis starts out strong but loses momentum as the game progresses is better than the Lord of the Rings travel counter work.

So New Rebel Victory Condition. Rebels must complete a Stage III Mission that either matches or brings the Rebel counter ahead of the turn counter. Because of this additional requirement to the rebel victory the rebel counter starts two points ahead of the regular starting condition.

W hat happens when the counters meet/cross each other? If the rebel inspiration counter and imperial turn counter cross each other then at the start of each turn the rebels get to produce one unit for each point ahead of the turn counter in priority order on a neutral system (neutral system is defined that is not under imperial or rebel control or imperial subjugation). This is to symbolizing other systems starting to rebel from the empire (although not as part of the alliance). The priority is what type of rebel unit gets placed depending on unit availability. The priority is as follows:

Rebel Troop, Ion Cannon, Rebel Speeder, Shield Generator, X-wing, Y-wing, Rebel Transport, Corelleian Corvette, Mon Calamari Star Cruiser.

So this case Rebels start to gain free units although they are technically independent (they do not control a system without the mission first) however they can be picked up by rebel units with a transport capacity and can join the rebel side in a battle. This is more like the Axis and allies set up where the momentum shifts from the Axis to the economic advantage the Allies have, only in this case it is not an economic advantage but an ideology that has spread to all the systems throughout the Galaxy to resists the Empire.

Question, comments?

I agree with you that the Rebel victory condition is very gamey.

I've never been fond of "clock" mechanics in games, but I understand they are usually needed to keep a game from going on forever.

I like your idea.

I actually really like the Rebel victory conditions, because what it represents is the war shifting to a fundamentally different type of conflict - one which is never portrayed in the Original trilogy. The resurrection of the Republic, mass defection of Imperial forces, and the galaxy as a whole deciding to throw off their shakles.

The goal of the Rebel Alliance in Rebellion is not to destroy the Empire, but merely to prove to the galaxy that the Empire is not invincible, that they can be defeated.

From Rogue One:

"If the Empire has this kind of power what chance do we have?"

It's about the Rebels being able to successfully answer that question. Not about ultimate victory, but hope.

Yeah, I like the standard condition, too. As Uglymug said, it demonstrates that the Alliance's true victory is winning over the people, not slaughtering stormtroopers.

Of course, it's more than likely that they'll have to win some key battles to achieve victory.

It's also more than likely that the Rebels will have to win some strategic objectives. This is why I do not feel that the victory is "anticlimactic"- a good Rebel player will plan to the objectives needed for victory.

Also, according to Legends, the war continues for another 15 years after the Battle of Endor. Not sure what happens in the new cannon, though.

The OT and Rebellion only depict up to a decisive turning point - not the entire war. It's a funny skit, but the Battle of Endor isn't "the end of the Empire".

From a game balance perspective, I think this variant places undue weight on the "Infiltrate" action and weakens the DS by strengthening "Inspire Sympathy". If the Rebel player thinks that "Infiltrate" actions are better used elsewhere they should be given the freedom to win the game with the Is and IIs. Likewise, the Empire might be able to recognize this and simply sit on Rebel leaders attempting to infiltrate with Yularen. Infiltration is already good, but this variant locks Rebels into "must play Infiltration every turn".

In the new canon the war continues after the battle of endor for a year. It isn't until Jakku that the war ends. Though for game purposes the war is basically over after the battle of endor. They just played for another turn before the war was officially over.


Just like in real life. In most wars the battle that decides who wins and loses the war takes place half way through the war and it's just a cleanup after that.

For instance most would agree the decisive battle in the American Civil war was the Battle of Gettysburg which took place half way through the war. For those of you who don't know, basically the south when all in mass zerg rush in the first couple turns and nearly took the North's capital, winning the war, but a series of tactical missteps, luck and a fence (yeah crazy stuff, look it up) allowed the north to win by the skin of their teeth.

though the war didn't end for several more years, the south kinda put everything into that one major push and played defense the rest of the war.

Or, in WWII some would say the battle of Stalingrad decided the European front. Which was relatively early into the war.

The pattern here is that these (and others) are the battle where the side that was on the offense switched to being primarily on the defense afterwards. Their main offensive campaign was thwarted, they were forced to switch to defense. And eventually would lose. Ridiculous over simplification is ridiculous of course.

Basically what I'm saying is that (for example) even though Napoleon ultimately lost at the battle of Waterloo where he *really* lost was during something like the Russian winter campaign. Again... huge oversimplifications are huge. But you get the idea.

So in Rebellion the markers crossing is a representation of when the empire switches from being on offense to defense. And eventually losing. Though a more precise description would be: The rebels have grown so strong that losing their rebel base would not stop the rebellion as the rebellion had reached critical mass and uprisings would start up faster than the empire could put them down.

On 4/6/2017 at 3:25 PM, davidumstattd said:

...
Just like in real life. In most wars the battle that decides who wins and loses the war takes place half way through the war and it's just a cleanup after that.

...

Dude, don't EVER go into politics. You got " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED " written all over you.

On 4/14/2017 at 3:44 AM, Marinealver said:

Dude, don't EVER go into politics. You got " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED " written all over you.

I didn't mention any wars more recent than WWII which I feel avoids modern politics well. I'm simply discussing war theory. Discussing modern wars isn't helpful in that regard as sometimes it takes a decade or two after the war ends to really declare who "won"

Though sometimes you get situations like the war of 1812 where there is still a debate among historians on who "won" that war. My opinion is that it's a tie. Not that it matters. I picked WWII and the American Revolution because they are kinda generally agreed upon as to who won those wars.

39 minutes ago, davidumstattd said:

I didn't mention any wars more recent than WWII which I feel avoids modern politics well. I'm simply discussing war theory. Discussing modern wars isn't helpful in that regard as sometimes it takes a decade or two after the war ends to really declare who "won"

Though sometimes you get situations like the war of 1812 where there is still a debate among historians on who "won" that war. My opinion is that it's a tie. Not that it matters. I picked WWII and the American Revolution because they are kinda generally agreed upon as to who won those wars.

I recommend if you have time also watch the YouTube series The Great War.

Now if I were to pick a single sport that could be compared as close to a representation of war I would pick boxing. Because a boxing match just like war can be decided by a single knockout blow, and that blow can still come from any side even from someone against the ropes, yet it is still common for entire bouts to be fought without a knock-out occurring.

But back on topic that is also my major criticism of the game. There is no knockout. Worse of all there is still the possibility of the game being decided with turns remaining where it doesn't seem like it should be decided in the same way. You could have an Imperial Player that has wiped out all the rebel units off he board save for a few in the rebel base. Know where the rebel base is, and lose because it is on the other side of the board. 4 turns away but only 3 turns remaining. That is a design flaw, I looked at the game and tried looking at a similar game (Axis and Allies came to mind) and though how it could be done better. I saw the Axis which started powerful but has to secure early or else the Allies economy which starts slow will gain momentum and over take the Axis. The Rebels don't have that slow but steady accelerating economy, instead they have a countdown timer. Now it does the job at putting the Empire against the clock but still it does provide for those situations I mention above granted only occasionally and for most games it plays out as expected but still there.

I think instead of a game ending timer, giving the rebels more momentum to take the board would be better.