2 hours ago, draco193 said:The only issue might be using the meta game knowledge of your partner potentially losing to play differently. Otherwise this is a campaign. Playing the long game is important. Your opponent should gave played more aggressively if he had wanted to really get after you.
If it was a good campaign it would be impossible to put together a meta list. If it was a good campaign.
2 minutes ago, Audio Weasel said:I'm conflicted on this, honestly. It sucks for the two people playing out that game, but it reminds me of a couple of times in the novels where they would stage a feint at one location in order to distract from the actual objective. It sounds great in the overarching story of the campaign.
hahaha true enough, what really steamed me was having my partner lose Corellia. "They feinted an attack on our base sir right as we assaulted theirs and, well, we both lost a base today..."
2 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:By the rules, do you mean that in the event of a tie, the second player wins? Or am I missing something (likely)?
Curious on that, here, too.
Only applicable rule I can find is the 'winning and losing', which awards the win to the second player in case of a tie. Which is, in the CC campaign, always the defender...not 'always the Imperial'. Although I certainly wouldn't mind that...
Ethics versus tactics also comes into play. I'm having only a few issues with some of the potential abnormalities in it: the overhearing results and if it was specifically done to annoy the player. The ethical portion deals with that, but the idea of engaging just to tie up an opponent is legitimate and even enjoyable: Can you pull it off? If I 'jump in, blow s*** up, and shunt out' by hosing a key ship and jumping out but losing nothing other than the match... is that tactics, or malice? Especially knowing how campaign points work?
Here's the thing: you're playing a team game in a progressive environment. Your opponent knows that. This is a campaign, the 'meta-decisions' you make impact the next game in much the same manner as Tournament gaming leads to playing the system in the same way to conserve and maximize points destroyed. It's not just pick up Armada, it's something very different in the same way as tournament play is different from campaigns or pick up games.
Is there such a thing as going against the spirit of the game? Yes, yes there is. Legality=acceptability is garbage to me: if you did this in a tournament game or a pick up game, yeah, I can see that line being crossed, but a tournament game means not only inflicting damage, but delaying stronger opponents for the betterment of your team so they can recover. If they couldn't figure that out, they aren't really considering the strategic side of things.
Here's a similar consideration: in my campaign the Imperials have taken a pounding: it's 5-1. Unfortunately, that Imperial win was a slaughter and demolished one of our teammates fleets: flagship scarred, no points to repair the MC80, and even a frigate. It was a route, and the Imperial fleet that survived is now nearly max-value but the two others are majorly understrenghted (in the ~300 range) and one had to retire. My fleet is a full 500 glorious points with almost 100 resource in the bank, and I'm considered a fairly strong admiral. So the plan is that I attack Corellia to draw back the one that can present us problems, and then delay his slower speed 2 fleet so that I can knock out a 'wing' of his group and jet without losses while my team mops up the two weak fleets and forces the campaign into a disastrously mismatched 'All Out Assault of 1500 vet points vs. 1300 fresh at most, and realistically 1250.' Is that ethical, or is that tactical?
Whelp, thanks for the topic guys:
Looks like I'm going to need to add an ET liberty for "HE" hunting! I'm loving that with the campaign, a different set of tactical concerns is trickling down into fleet construction as well! Interdictors and fast picket cruisers may come to be a necessity for at least one of the campaign fleets now 
On the flip side, don't you have an ethical responsibility to your teammates to take what you believe to be the best course for the team? Yes. You do.
And you did!
Good for you.
32 minutes ago, Marinealver said:If it was a good campaign it would be impossible to put together a meta list. If it was a good campaign.
I did not mention anything about a meta list. I was specifically talking about changing tactics when the OP stated he changed tactics when he overheard the results of the other game.
A little late to this thread, but a similar event happened at the release of Wave 2 at the first local tournament, We both had 2TRC90s and 2 Mk2AF with gunnery teams, ECM and Ackbar. Only difference was I took EA and he took X17's. For about 45 minutes we just circled each other and then in round 5 finally engaged. Nothing died, but we both were disappointed with the game. Cost us both a top 4 seed as well in doing that. I the end though we both shared we were a bit scared of each others fleets and had a good laugh about it. I guess to take away from this post is everyone handle a boring game different and some of us can get upset or joke about it. So far in our campaign we've done our games sequentially which makes it way more intense...especially if you're last.
Couldn't he of just heals back too, take the loss but no ship losses too? What is with so many people needing wins, 10-0 tabling? You don't have to win every battle to win the war.
2 hours ago, WuFame said:I just wanna input that I'm extremely thankful to have the player base we have here in Raleigh. Some of the people you guys tell stories of playing against sound awful.
Where are you playing in Raleigh?
2 hours ago, Audio Weasel said:I'm conflicted on this, honestly. It sucks for the two people playing out that game, but it reminds me of a couple of times in the novels where they would stage a feint at one location in order to distract from the actual objective. It sounds great in the overarching story of the campaign.
It's obviously a matter of opinion, but I don't even thinks it sucks for the people playing out the game personally. All the different strategies and tactics are what make the campaign interesting, if it means I get to roll a few less dice I'm okay with that. Anybody getting upset over the opponent making the best long term strategic decision maybe just doesn't prefer campaign style play. I love the fact that people are forced into making some of these decisions, and am only more excited to get a campaign going.
This is pretty simple. Your opponent is emotionally immature and his language qualifies as emotional manipulation. I know it can be hard to find games and sometimes if you want to play, you just have to take what you can get for opponents. Maybe something like, "I can see that you're really frustrated with how the game played out. Care to look at the game and see where we might improve?" In the end, some players just have very strong opinions about how the game is supposed to be played, and they are often the voices that rant the strongest and are most likely to walk out on their fellow gamers and the game itself. I encourage everyone to pick the games that are for them. There's obviously no shortage of games in the world, not to mention ways to spend our free time and I want nothing less than for everyone to have the most enjoyable free time possible.
18 minutes ago, benskywalker said:Where are you playing in Raleigh?
I play mostly at Game Theory. Do we know each other?
Edited by WuFame2 hours ago, WuFame said:I play mostly at Game Theory. Do we know each other?
I haven't been getting to play Armada so probably not. Thursday's are usually a problem for me so I want to start trying to play on Sundays if people will come out. Game Theory definitely gets all my business. I love those guys.
I think that a lot of people are jumping into the CC campaign without thinking through the shift in mentality that is required.
Going from Tourney play where each battle requires as crushing a victory as possible, to Campaign where a win is a win, with as little lost as possible seems to be a difficult transition. The Hyperspacing out tactic to preserve ships is totally valid. I do see the frustration of seeing a nearly dead ship escape and not be scarred meaning you have an opponent who is not having to spend valuable refit points and denies a bit of the "well at least I got his ______ in exchange" moment.
Leaving a heavily damaged ship on the board is an extreme gamble that if you lose costs resources that could be preserved. Sometimes it is worth the stretch others sending it home early is the right call.
14 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:By the rules, do you mean that in the event of a tie, the second player wins? Or am I missing something (likely)?
I had the same question. You obviously were the attacker and hence first player. So why did you auto win for being Imperial (second player usually auto wins)?
Forgive me, I don't have the CC rules in front of me and won't have access to them till Sunday. The only thing I can think of from the CC rules that is close to this is that Imperials win the campaign in the event that both teams simultaneously score enough campaign points to win and they are also tied for campaign points. I can't remember anything about Imps auto winning battles.
Anyone got a quote or page reference?
Something a lot of people seem to be overlooking is that this is a two-player game. Sure, there are some tactically or strategically sound things you can do, but if you are ruining the enjoyment of the game, then really, no-one is winning.
Non engagement may win you the game, but you've wasted your opponent's time. IMO, the morally right thing to do is to offer a surrender. Explain what you are doing, and that it's obvious he can't win. Give him the option to stop the game, possibly offering him up a small ship, and you can play something else. Either a standard round of Armada, or some other game entirely. If, at that point, he rejects your offer, (as I probably would) then you're not wasting his time any more, he's playing the game he chose to play.
Again, remember that people are showing up to play the game. If you sit across from them and refuse to play the game for 90 minutes, they are entitled to feel a bit salty. Try to find some way to mitigate the damage.
17 hours ago, xanderf said:Curious on that, here, too.
Only applicable rule I can find is the 'winning and losing', which awards the win to the second player in case of a tie. Which is, in the CC campaign, always the defender...not 'always the Imperial'. Although I certainly wouldn't mind that...
Correct, in Armada the second player wins ties. This means that the Defending Player always has the advantage, and non-engagement by the Attacker results in a Defender Win (and probably a Campaign Point). This means that if the Defender wants to deploy away and run, it forces the Attacking Player to be aggressive. This gives an innate advantage to the Defender, which feels thematically appropriate, and makes base assaults hard since the attacker must go into the base's defensive elements and engage the defender. Why would the locals revolt and join the Empire if the Imperial fleet arrived and then ran away without engagement? What that would do, though, is bolster the local's faith in their allegiance to the Rebellion, who they just watched intimidate the Imperials to run away (hence a Campaign point for the Defender).
In the interest of fairness and of balance, you should readjust your game to a loss for your fleet and a victory for the Rebel defender, as he was Second Player. This means the Rebel Base is maintained and it's a swing of campaign points (+1 to Rebs, -X where X is however many you scored for destroying the base). Now, your opponent might still be frustrated he didn't get to roll dice, but that's the nature of the engagement sometimes but at least it will probably feel better to have won and protected the base on sheer show of force alone.
In Competitive Armada, the tourney structure incentivizes engagement (since running away for victories without fighting are only worth 6 Points). In the Campaign, the Campaign Point system incentivizes engagement for one player, but possible avoidance for another. Attackers and Defenders need to recognize this and play accordingly. Since in the Corellian Conflict, a 6-5 (0-0) win is every bit as good as a 10-1 (500-0) win, from the perspective of Campaign Points and spatial control.
39 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:In Competitive Armada, the tourney structure incentivizes engagement (since running away for victories without fighting are only worth 6 Points). In the Campaign, the Campaign Point system incentivizes engagement for one player, but possible avoidance for another. Attackers and Defenders need to recognize this and play accordingly. Since in the Corellian Conflict, a 6-5 (0-0) win is every bit as good as a 10-1 (500-0) win, from the perspective of Campaign Points and spatial control.
I think this is what a LOT of people are struggling with in the early days of the campaign.
All of us are so used to Armada being the game where there is 9 times out of 10 absolutely no reason NOT to engage your enemy. You know it, your enemy knows it. Till now in order to win in a competitive environment you need more than those 6 pts. Now all of a sudden all that is turned on it's head. You don't need big wins. One player, in fact, actually has a strong incentive NOT to engage at all. But snapping out of the way we have all played Armada for years doesn't happen overnight, and of course there will be people who resist this change as it fundamentally alters how they need to approach the table, from list build to deployment speed to realizing that if you want that base you have no choice but to run your ISD through the ion cannon beacon and target the speed 1 sideways-deployed ships that are perfectly content to wait for you to come to them. Or, you know, not and have your attack fail.
I think the community will adjust as the campaign style of play becomes more commonplace. I don't think there was anything ethically or RAW wrong with playing the game to your fullest advantage. And I think the people complaining about it will eventually quiet down.
2 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:And I think the people complaining about it will eventually quiet down.
Ladies and gentlemen, the triumph of hope over experience.
I recently played a bit more aggressively on a base defense as a defender than i should have because i thought it was a farce and wanted the other guy to pay for it before he could leave. I got too aggressive, made a key mistake that snowballed into losing most of my fleet as well as hitting him hard. I lost the game, but it was my fault. However, I played that way because feints are a perfectly usable tactic in any campaign. If he had attacked and hyperspaced out, he preserves his fleet and we get 1 campaign point. Good deal for him if hes protecting something else by occupying me and it means little that we get 1 point in that context. It didnt go my way, but thats what can happen. Dont worry about it.
2 hours ago, Madaghmire said:Ladies and gentlemen, the triumph of hope over experience.
3 hours ago, Madaghmire said:Ladies and gentlemen, the triumph of hope over experience.
Oh come now Maddy, give the community some credit. I mean, when was the last time we had a thread start about how to fix Demolisher? Or how to beat the Gencon Special?
This to shall pass...... in a couple of years.
4 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:Oh come now Maddy, give the community some credit. I mean, when was the last time we had a thread start about how to fix Demolisher? Or how to beat the Gencon Special?
This to shall pass...... in a couple of years.
Thats a good point.
Anywho I'm off to create some topics...