So, this is our coordination thread. At the moment we are the following players:

• @BrobaFett
• @Darth Veggie
• @Ginkapo
• @Green Knight (withdrew from the campaign)
• @Kikaze
• @MattShadowlord
• @doobleg

From the initial contact, the first step is checking compatibility considering time zones.

Could everybody post his preferences/impossibilities to check whether we can proceed in this group of six and how to construct teams.

Next step then is agreeing on rules :-)

I will edit this post from time to time for easy access on everything relevant.

Here is the link to the state of the game after the campaign setup

Here is the link to the state of the game after round one

Here is the link to the current state of the game of round 3 .

And I also start with my preferences: It is easy for me to play against my fellow Europeans and against Australian players. Difficult are Americans (especially West Coast), but not impossible.

my timezone is GMT+2(european). i work from 8:30 to 16:30 GMT but otherwise i am flexible. the problem is that occasionaly i may work saturdays, but that is not permanent. i can play weekday afternoons, or-

in weekends where usualy i am free, i can play at mostly any time.

I am US West Coast, but am a nightowl as my primary availability for play is between GMT 6 am- GMT 10am. I can also typically eek in games during the week between 2 PM - 11 PM GMT with some ahead of time scheduling since that is my workday and depending on load I can play or not.

I work 8-7 GMT weekdays and because I live nowhere near my friends often spend weekends travelling.

As i said when you messaged me, Matt Shadow was here first and I would really struggle to play him.

Quote

As i said when you messaged me, Matt Shadow was here first and I would really struggle to play him.

I am in Australia, but our time zone combination isn't a problem if we are on the same side

Time zones are tricky...unlike gink I can sometimes play Matt in my mornings, but it's not ideal (should be working really). But US is not necessarily much easier.

My interpretation of all of this would be the following teams:

Ginkapo, Matt and Kikaze vs Green Knight, Brobafett and me

1. Do you see anything arbitrary with this solution or have a nicer one?

2. If not, which team is which faction? I'd like to play imps (because in my table top cc I play rebels), but playing rebels is far from a bummer for me (and I am even better doing so). What are your preferences?

1. i can only speak for myself- i have played vs green knight and brobafett before, so i can play again; darth veggie being also a european means things should be fine with him too.

2. in my tabletop CC i play imperials, but i do not really have a preference. maybe rebels for variety, but idc really.

I am fine with either. I don't currently have a tabletop CC, so Vassal is going to have to be what scratches my itch for a while, which means I will make it work whatever needs to be done.

Skill levels are close, but I leave it up to GK. Does he want his favoured imps or does he want to take assault frigates aeay from Matt Shadow.....?

16 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Skill levels are close, but I leave it up to GK. Does he want his favoured imps or does he want to take assault frigates aeay from Matt Shadow.....?

I think I'd actually prefer a go at Rebels. Haven't played them in a good while, and I'll probably be on the rebel side next CC run (after we squash the little insects this run).

Team composition is less of an issue. If I'm not playing Vader, I'm not choking anyone, so battle losses are, if not acceptable, at least tolerable

If everybody is fine with this, thereby we have taken the first two steps. Teams are built and sides are chosen:

Rebel Alliance:

• Green Knight
• Brobafett
• Darth Veggie

Galactic Empire:

• MattShadowlord
• Kikaze
• Ginkapo

The next three steps, as far as I can see it, we can take simulaneously:

1. Agree on rules
2. Agree on communication plattforms.
3. Elect Grand Admirals

1. Rules. As a starting point maybe we can take GK's homebrew:

Does anybody have further suggestions or dislikes considering those?

2. As I have written in the PMs I have sent to you we could use my blog for campaign progress tracking. The teams still need to have a different way for tracking hidden information, but for the rest, it might work. Simply follow this link (this is the setup version of my German CC table top campaign; of course I would translate it to English, if we use it):

https://admiral-darthveggie.jimdo.com/2017/02/27/das-flottenkommando-corellia-gegen-den-flottenverband-corellias-hoffnung-kampagnenvorbereitung/

3. Considering my team: Do we want to transfer this discussion to channels not open to the imperial oppressors? Maybe whatsapp or any other preferences?

I dont like disbanding or allowing retired uniques to return. Whilst GK has written it to allow mistakes to be less painful, it can be massively gamed by the leading team to optimise their fleets.

Considering the rules:

1. Secrecy, Fleets: Why cannot the leading side dictate engagements as good as before? Or to be more precise: Why could they at all before?
2. Linked to this: The secondary use of Spynet seems to me to be irrelevant, because it is a lot less powerfull than the primariy use.
3. I propose the following ability for Skilled Spacers: This token can be spend immediately after a ship revealed its command dial in a space battle and had not used it. Immediately retreat the ship into hyperspace following otherwise the normal rules for such a retreat. Reason: Green Knight's version is way better than the originanl one. However, this one is even more interesting/thematically fitting.
4. Diplomats: I consider them even with GK's changes still not to be really relevant, becauase it does not seem to me to be very likely that a team grabs two of those or even three. And even if, I do not like the idea that Corellia can be taken out of the CORELLIAN Conflict ;-)

35 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I dont like disbanding or allowing retired uniques to return. Whilst GK has written it to allow mistakes to be less painful, it can be massively gamed by the leading team to optimise their fleets.

I wrote that list to give people ideas and maybe have some interesting concepts thrown back at me. I don't necessarily like all of them, and certainly don't use all of them in play.

Example: I our current tabletop CC we have some rules in effect, aimed mostly at helping the less experienced players (I start with a pts handicap, some of the others get bonus pts), and to make the worthless specials...worthwhile.

Anyway. I suggest we stick to RAW. So let's instead discuss what the RAW is (for example, the base placement order).

Even if we discuss simply RAW (which I would consider neclecting nice improvements to the game), I would prefer to discuss simply your collected interpretations. This would quicken the entire discussion a lot, because if no one objects we have the entire bundle clarified at once.

Me and GK share interpretations of RAW.

Base placement. 1 imp, 2 reb.

8 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Me and GK share interpretations of RAW.

Base placement. 1 imp, 2 reb.

That's the one.

I still find the Rieekan zombie retreat to be lame, but it's undeniably RAW.

Then there is the e-mail ruling that says assaults generate "at least one cp", ie 1+CP bonus from location.

But at the same time fails to apply the same logic to say a special assault (which would then be "at least one plus zero", ie 1+0).

If find this ruling to be extremely dubious and lacking in consistence.

But it's a ruling, so we need to decide what to do with it.

Is the map or CC booklet authoritative?

AFAIK there are 2 locations where map/booklet differ.

I love Rieekan. I hate Rieekan zombie retreat.

i think we all agree there. while i allowed rieekan to exploit this in our local CC campaign, that had to do with team skill levels being unequal. i dont want rieekan to xploit the retreat rule.

however i support the skilled spacers=immediate hyperspace jump ability as it allows for comeback mechanics, allowing the losing side to save ships, which is always fun.

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Is the map or CC booklet authoritative?

AFAIK there are 2 locations where map/booklet differ.

i am of the opinion the map is authoritative.

regarding secrecy: because the losing side gets to declare two assaults, the leading side gets to decide (at least) the first of the matchups. i.e. "their fleet with less fighter screen goes here, let our bomber fleet defend". i think that is what GK was refering to.

And taking the map as authoritative has the advantage that we WILL use the map anyway :-)

What about the Hyperlane Assault objective? The RAW version seems to me to be stupid.