The unique squadron cards were a smart move. I will probably buy every campaign anyways because i'm a completionist with this game but if they really want every player to buy a box they need to always do an equivalent of the squadrons. New titles for every ship in the game would be cool or even another wave of squadron cards for the second squadron packs and Rogues and Villains.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

That, and basically, its designed that i fyou want to run the Campaign a second time, you should be buying a second box.

I mean, circumventing that cost me more than what a second box would have. I won't see "return" on it until the 3rd Campaign Playthrough..

Yeah I guess for thirty thats a good point. However I just put the stickers on card stock, and scanned the fleet rosters and faction lists and printed out additional ones which was pretty cheap. I know you're probably running the campaign for many people though so its probably a bit different.

That, and the Map is on Living Display at the same time.

I can tell you for myself when I can somehow scare up enough regular players to commit to a game. Where I'm at, it feels like I'm pulling teeth these days to get more than one person to commit to a regular day.

5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

That, and basically, its designed that i fyou want to run the Campaign a second time, you should be buying a second box.

I mean, circumventing that cost me more than what a second box would have. I won't see "return" on it until the 3rd Campaign Playthrough..

You only have to buy a second box if you are playing the campaign alone .

Normally you have a group of people, and after you used the box from the first, you can use the box from the second one. Every player will normally buy his own box (sooner or later).
This is the only part that is pushing the selling numbers. Some player are only buying the imperial or rebel ships, and not the other fraction. But this box will be bought by erveryone, like the scum squadron box.

But in the long run it will be less compared to the ship box sells. On the plus side, there are no models in the box. This means one less step for production. And it might be that the cost of production is lower because of this. And the gains might be higher this way, even when they sell less numbers.

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

But in the long run it will be less compared to the ship box sells. On the plus side, there are no models in the box. This means one less step for production. And it might be that the cost of production is lower because of this. And the gains might be higher this way, even when they sell less numbers.

Now, I'm not 'in the biz' but I'd bet my left nut that having a product composed entirely of printed paper and card, as opposed to one that requires a plastic injection mold, assembly and painting, then that card-only product would be MUCH cheaper to produce.

6 hours ago, Darthain said:

It had a good stack of objectives and some excellent squads that have had a huge impact on the game.

The campaign itself is rubbish/a slapdash afterthought imo.

That seems a unfairly harsh. It had a few typos and errors, but overall provides a great play experience IMO.

It gives it a more casual scene which separates it further from X-wing and that is good. As far as competitive I don't see it reaching the same levels of competitive play as X-wing, however having a narrative focused format that is official endorsed by FFG does make it the better casual game.

2 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

Now, I'm not 'in the biz' but I'd bet my left nut that having a product composed entirely of printed paper and card, as opposed to one that requires a plastic injection mold, assembly and painting, then that card-only product would be MUCH cheaper to produce.

This is what i said. The CC Box will be cheaper in the production. So the margin might be bigger with the CC box compared to the ship boxes.

So even with lower selling numbers, the profit might be the same.

6 hours ago, Tokra said:

You only have to buy a second box if you are playing the campaign alone .

Normally you have a group of people, and after you used the box from the first, you can use the box from the second one. Every player will normally buy his own box (sooner or later).
This is the only part that is pushing the selling numbers. Some player are only buying the imperial or rebel ships, and not the other fraction. But this box will be bought by erveryone, like the scum squadron box.

But in the long run it will be less compared to the ship box sells. On the plus side, there are no models in the box. This means one less step for production. And it might be that the cost of production is lower because of this. And the gains might be higher this way, even when they sell less numbers.

Or your Number of Playthroughs exceeds your Players.

That's already happening in parts of Calgary.

4 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

That seems a unfairly harsh. It had a few typos and errors, but overall provides a great play experience IMO.

Disagree entirely, but not really interested in further discourse so I'll give the Coles notes version:

-too thin a veneer to be meaningful, just a really small backdrop too armada games

-escalation is too quick, getting a 500 pt fleet is simple and happens too rapidly, because there are too many resources flying around.

- resources quickly become meaningless (see above), dimishes any strategic value overall.

- imperial show of force is a much easier objective then hyperlane as written, further creates a resource imbalance best dealt with by extremely aggressive rebel play on bases, which can sour imperial moods.

-there is no incentive to continue if one team falls behind a reasonable amount.

-not convinced some fighter combos are not actually broken at 500 pts

-team skill level equality of crucial, which can be somewhat double edged if needing to mix casual with competition players in a single pool

- competitive list building ideologies make for a relatively dull campaign as the obvious match ups/ best counters are often chosen, so you see the same plays a few times unless you legitimately throw something strange just to mix it up.

-the rigidity of fleets is rather silly, and the lack of surprise at what hits the table gets tired quickly. A large Grand fleet you pull from could be more interesting.

-everyone can be everywhere, no proximity etc, a bit odd.

23 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Or your Number of Playthroughs exceeds your Players.

That's already happening in parts of Calgary.

This is why i used a picture frame with metal sheet and magnets.
Yes, it was more expensive than buying a second box. But we plan on doing more rounds. So it "might" become handy.

9 minutes ago, Tokra said:

This is why i used a picture frame with metal sheet and magnets.
Yes, it was more expensive than buying a second box. But we plan on doing more rounds. So it "might" become handy.

Which is what I did, as I said

10 minutes ago, Tokra said:

This is why i used a picture frame with metal sheet and magnets.
Yes, it was more expensive than buying a second box. But we plan on doing more rounds. So it "might" become handy.

I did the same thing. As I am about to start a third campaign, it has already paid for itself.

I won't disagree I think theres a lot of work to be done for the next campaign.

For one I think the next campaign needs basically two versions using the same materials and basic rules but with variation. I'm thinking a streamlined version, basically quick play, that's meant to be finished in three or four rounds. It would play very much like the Corellian Conflict just on a different map.

Then I think the main campaign should expand upon what the Corellian Campaign did. If Corellian Conflict is the mobile/console strategy game then make this the PC/Mac/Linux one. Obviously it doesnt need to be uber complicated because the main attraction here are the battles but make the management stage a little more in depth. The CC is good enough to string your battles in a cohesive way but could much improved next time around

My ideas for that:

• Make Hyperlanes Great Again: Essentially think Empire at War or Battlefront II's Galactic Conquest mode. Where you place bases should be far more important and I think there should be limits on how far from your base you can attack.
• Independent Systems: These would be planetary systems that
• Make Outposts Matter: I think both factions should be able to build outposts and outposts should be made a little more significant with their own outpost defense cards. Think bases but at a fraction of the effectiveness and the outpost defense cards add little to the battle.
• Less Resources: In my play through of CC we started our fleets at 300 and even then we have 450 minimum fleets going into round 3. Resources need to be toned down quite a bit. You should have to work for 500.
• More Objectives: goes with out saying.
• More Battlefield Effects: I think the battle station part was really cool and could be expanded. Why not make several levels of battle stations with different abilities. Maybe one kind had heavy shields and you can only use red and black dice against it while another has ECM defenses and can only have red and blue against it and so on. Maybe one kind has defense tokens. The dust fields were a really great addition, all I can think that is left would be gas clouds or nebulae. Essentially something a large base and medium base ship couldn't cross but squadrons and small base ships can.

13 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

That, and basically, its designed that i fyou want to run the Campaign a second time, you should be buying a second box.

I mean, circumventing that cost me more than what a second box would have. I won't see "return" on it until the 3rd Campaign Playthrough..

You're forgetting that every player of a campaign that I've heard about, including people who don't play the campaign, has bought the Box. So there is no need for one person to buy a second box if everyone has one. Just use someone else's!

You don't buy the box just for the map and stickers that can't be reused, unless you get creative, but the box set also comes with new objectives and Squadron Cards everyone wants, so there is an abundance of extra maps and stickers to go around until the next campaign comes out.

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

Disagree entirely, but not really interested in further discourse so I'll give the Coles notes version:

-too thin a veneer to be meaningful, just a really small backdrop too armada games

-escalation is too quick, getting a 500 pt fleet is simple and happens too rapidly, because there are too many resources flying around.

- resources quickly become meaningless (see above), dimishes any strategic value overall.

- imperial show of force is a much easier objective then hyperlane as written, further creates a resource imbalance best dealt with by extremely aggressive rebel play on bases, which can sour imperial moods.

-there is no incentive to continue if one team falls behind a reasonable amount.

-not convinced some fighter combos are not actually broken at 500 pts

-team skill level equality of crucial, which can be somewhat double edged if needing to mix casual with competition players in a single pool

- competitive list building ideologies make for a relatively dull campaign as the obvious match ups/ best counters are often chosen, so you see the same plays a few times unless you legitimately throw something strange just to mix it up.

-the rigidity of fleets is rather silly, and the lack of surprise at what hits the table gets tired quickly. A large Grand fleet you pull from could be more interesting.

-everyone can be everywhere, no proximity etc, a bit odd.

I'll disagree with your first post that this is rubbish, your second post makes some valid issues. This is not perfect and I don't know how long they worked on the campaign, but hopefully they continue and keep polishing their campaign mechanics. The nice thing about being casual is that your group can house rules some of the issues you brought up to improve your experience, I have also seen how hard it is to game design with some of the house rules I have seen proposed. If Armada had the player base of X-Wing I am sure the campaign would have been more fleshed out, but Armada is a smaller community and as a business FFG can not dedicate as many resources to it, especially to what boils down to a side game for the game - it sucks and I hate it but it is life.

58 minutes ago, Forresto said:

I won't disagree I think theres a lot of work to be done for the next campaign.

For one I think the next campaign needs basically two versions using the same materials and basic rules but with variation. I'm thinking a streamlined version, basically quick play, that's meant to be finished in three or four rounds. It would play very much like the Corellian Conflict just on a different map.

Then I think the main campaign should expand upon what the Corellian Campaign did. If Corellian Conflict is the mobile/console strategy game then make this the PC/Mac/Linux one. Obviously it doesnt need to be uber complicated because the main attraction here are the battles but make the management stage a little more in depth. The CC is good enough to string your battles in a cohesive way but could much improved next time around

My ideas for that:

• Make Hyperlanes Great Again: Essentially think Empire at War or Battlefront II's Galactic Conquest mode. Where you place bases should be far more important and I think there should be limits on how far from your base you can attack.
• Independent Systems: These would be planetary systems that
• Make Outposts Matter: I think both factions should be able to build outposts and outposts should be made a little more significant with their own outpost defense cards. Think bases but at a fraction of the effectiveness and the outpost defense cards add little to the battle.
• Less Resources: In my play through of CC we started our fleets at 300 and even then we have 450 minimum fleets going into round 3. Resources need to be toned down quite a bit. You should have to work for 500.
• More Objectives: goes with out saying.
• More Battlefield Effects: I think the battle station part was really cool and could be expanded. Why not make several levels of battle stations with different abilities. Maybe one kind had heavy shields and you can only use red and black dice against it while another has ECM defenses and can only have red and blue against it and so on. Maybe one kind has defense tokens. The dust fields were a really great addition, all I can think that is left would be gas clouds or nebulae. Essentially something a large base and medium base ship couldn't cross but squadrons and small base ships can.

I like some of the ideas but have some reservations about the others. Decreasing planetary credit value I think would help overall, and having the outpost defenses would be cool (only fighter defense and ion cannons, and make both half the effect).

I do not like the idea of limiting where you could attack. I think that could pigeon hole where folks are only playing on opponent/ force some people to not be able to play at all (no battle spaces close enough). Perhaps there could be some extra bonus for being near your base/outpost in terms of unscarring forces ?

And while I'd like some more obstacles like nebulae, nothing that would inhibit movement. An interdictor could move that in front of an MC80 at the start of the game and just lock it down. New bases would be good, but nothing restricting dice types. Just makes it too complicated.

Overall great thoughts though. Might need to work on a modified campaign with some of these

2 hours ago, Darthain said:

-not convinced some fighter combos are not actually broken at 500 pts

Which combos are you seeing that are a bit broken?

2 hours ago, Darthain said:

-team skill level equality of crucial, which can be somewhat double edged if needing to mix casual with competition players in a single pool

I think this is not a design flaw, it's just part of any sort of game where you're mixing in experienced and inexperienced players.

10 minutes ago, draco193 said:

Which combos are you seeing that are a bit broken?

I think this is not a design flaw, it's just part of any sort of game where you're mixing in experienced and inexperienced players.

1) fighter synergies just get too ridiculous overall at 167 points.

2) of course it isn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

10 minutes ago, Darthain said:

1) fighter synergies just get too ridiculous overall at 167 points.

I was just wondering which ones you had found to be too powerful. In our campaign I don't think we saw squadrons playing an oversized role unless you brought just a small token force and the other player had overwhelming numbers. But we had also houseruled you could swap out anything as long as you had the points to buy it. So that made sure no one got stuck.

7 minutes ago, draco193 said:

I was just wondering which ones you had found to be too powerful. In our campaign I don't think we saw squadrons playing an oversized role unless you brought just a small token force and the other player had overwhelming numbers. But we had also houseruled you could swap out anything as long as you had the points to buy it. So that made sure no one got stuck.

Well the entire imperial team conceded due to never wanting to fight the 'Biggs Muostacje Ride' again. Seriously that was their main reason. Haven, biggs, jan, bunch of nonsense escort. It is bad enough at 400. The imperial AA ball of aces + dengar was also suitably horrifying, but not as bad.

1 hour ago, Beatty said:

You're forgetting that every player of a campaign that I've heard about, including people who don't play the campaign, has bought the Box. So there is no need for one person to buy a second box if everyone has one. Just use someone else's!

You don't buy the box just for the map and stickers that can't be reused, unless you get creative, but the box set also comes with new objectives and Squadron Cards everyone wants, so there is an abundance of extra maps and stickers to go around until the next campaign comes out.

And as I said.

6 Players = 6 Playthroughs

And we're already approaching that limit.

As the organiser of everything Armada Related, I merely future-proofed.

Because it should work that way, for up to 6 people at once... But even with the core 6 I've dealt with, 2 even said "Nah, I'll be keeping the map as a poster" and one said "I'm going to be running my own campaign with different people."

From my experiences with the CC campaign, and from playing many other campaign systems over the past 40 years, I feel FFG dropped the ball with regard to what has plagued campaign systems from the dawn of time, namely:

• Difficult to play without all of the players showing up. In CC you just can't play when someone can't/doesn't show up, or you can and the math/balance gets messed up.
• Maintaining week-to-week gamestate is a pain. Even with software aids, CC is just far too fiddly and painful to maintain from week to week for the little reward you get from having fleets and the map progress.
• Falling behind discourages the losers. CC suffers from this as well.

All of the above problems are solvable and can be addressed in ongoing campaigns and FFG failed at all of them for CC, and for a company of their scope I found this disappointing. Even though CC has been fun, just like most of its campaign predecessors, it's also too much of a pain to bother with again. I expected more from FFG.

31 minutes ago, Thraug said:

From my experiences with the CC campaign, and from playing many other campaign systems over the past 40 years, I feel FFG dropped the ball with regard to what has plagued campaign systems from the dawn of time, namely:

• Difficult to play without all of the players showing up. In CC you just can't play when someone can't/doesn't show up, or you can and the math/balance gets messed up.
• Maintaining week-to-week gamestate is a pain. Even with software aids, CC is just far too fiddly and painful to maintain from week to week for the little reward you get from having fleets and the map progress.
• Falling behind discourages the losers. CC suffers from this as well.

All of the above problems are solvable and can be addressed in ongoing campaigns and FFG failed at all of them for CC, and for a company of their scope I found this disappointing. Even though CC has been fun, just like most of its campaign predecessors, it's also too much of a pain to bother with again. I expected more from FFG.

I almost feel as if CC would be a much better system if it required a GM and took on some of Age of Rebellion or Edge of the Empire's RPG elements. Players actually took up the roll of commanders and had to explain losses and plan strategies in character... then again, you'd be looking a a 5-6 hour play time....

On a side note. Mixing Armada and the FFG SW RPGs can be hella fun under casual settings.

4 hours ago, Darthain said:

Well the entire imperial team conceded due to never wanting to fight the 'Biggs Muostacje Ride' again. Seriously that was their main reason. Haven, biggs, jan, bunch of nonsense escort. It is bad enough at 400. The imperial AA ball of aces + dengar was also suitably horrifying, but not as bad.

Defender spam is ridiculous