Hi all!

Our play group (of 6) was very excited to start our very first C campaign some 2 months ago. After reading some of the posts in this forum we decided to add some of the house rules proposed (mainly by @Green Knight here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241727-cc-my-ideas-for-house-rules-and-tweaks/ )

Now we are about to finish it, and the overall feeling is disapointment. Most of us want to restart our regular league soon, and are not too eager to start a new campaign, at least not without heavy house-ruling.

I think most of the bad feelings come from these 2 points:

A.- Lack of strategic depth. The game mechanics are soooo shallow that they could be non-existent. Strategically there are only 2 decisions to take:

1. where to place the first bases and outpost (and there is little variation to this point. the decisions you should make are quite standard and variations difficult to defend)

2. which system to assault each turn, which turns to be a no brainer because there are no limits: if you are assaulting an enemy controlled system, you go for the most valuable one (why not!?) In our campaign the Rebels had the upper hand from the beginning and they kept assaulting Corellia until they got it on the second attempt. Then they started with the next most valuable system....

and that is all.

B.- Repetitiveness. As you have to attach yourself to a fleet, and with the present fleet rebuilding rules, there is no variety from turn to turn. Attaching yourself to your fleet/team, that in other games works quite well, in this game has been a problem as we had the feeling of playing the same game once and again. With 6 players at least you have the possibility to play 3 different matches before you start replaying the same game with little variations. With just 4 players I guess it is even worse.

There are also minor bugs. For example, losing by 1 point is the same as losing by 400 (except for the fact that now you have to rebuild your fleet). Thus, many matches ended by turn 4, because one of the players realized it was very unlikely he was going to win and hyperspaced (which was the right decision). Planning the whole match, schedulling the whole afternoon, take a 1 hour trip, just to play half game is very dissapointing!

Some ideas we are musing over are:

1.- access to some ships is limited to control over some systems or group of systems

2.- communication lines joining the systems as secure travel routes. You can ignore them but you risk some drawback (a % of the fleet starts the match scarred...?)

3.- systems defenses are improved by nearby controlled systems, maybe as reinforces coming in from hyperspace(?)

4.- large defeats (jumping to hyperspace leads to large defeats) may lead to losing control of nearby systems

5.- garrisons (you have to leave a % of your fleet to control a system). Maybe these garrisons are the ones brought as the reinforcements of point (3)

6.- spynets and/or commandos (instead of spacers?) may be used to retain garrisons, or sabotage system resources, or ship repairs/building

So, what is your experience? Have you incorporated house rules to improve the campaign?

We only used one house rule: You could straight up destroy something to remove it from your fleet point totals (so one was not stuck with worthless upgrades)

And the only real complaint we had was stagnate fleets. I think, personally, that this is largely because we are averaging only one game a week. If one did it over the course of say a long weekend I think it would be a much better situation.

I think having Garrison fleets- 300pts, prebuilt, Admiral must Hyperspace if ship is below half HP but is free- might help alleviate that, and open options for multiple attacks in a two vs two setup.

we just finished a campaign this weekend

Our biggest problem was player skill imbalances. Additionally as most players didn't frequent these forums there was a lot of learning as we went along so some of the issues you describe haven't appeared yet.

We're starting to talk loosely about the next iteration but it will likely be weeks or longer before we get organised. Some have suggested we allow units and upgrades to be transferred between fleets - perhaps for a small cost; or drawing randomly for uniques before building starter fleets.

We finished the first try in round 2 after the Imperials lost 4 of 5 battles. In the last of them one entire fleet was tabled during "Show of Force". Now we started with a maybe better mix of players in the groups. And the first battle was a "Hyperlane Route" that brought huge advantage for the Rebels. So I think these special attacks are a kind of problem.

We ran one and immediately started a second. A relatively flat player skill pool and nobody intentionally pushing extreme fleet design (Zombie ramming, DemSU) did wonders. Ended the first one with the closest final I've heard of on the boards (9-8 Rebels going into All Out and it was won by 47 points out of 1500)

I do like the idea of a more restrictive map though.

I think the depth you are looking for would be better represented by your own rules all together. The Corellian campaign was never intended as much more then an excuse to have some linked games. In this regard it works great. It was also a good excuse to add more aces, also great. It was however not intended to be a complicated campaign system.

Optional House rule #1: Limit each ship in the fleet to being able to purchase only a single upgrade card each campaign round. This will stop some of the very early hard hitting combo builds that require 3+ cards to make work. Those who keep those ships alive will be able to benefit from them in the late stage or final battle of the campaign.

Optional House Rule #2: No repeat objectives on the same team. Excluding campaign objectives which are situational. This ensures a more wide range of objective choices to be seen during your games with a limited player pool. Hopefully it will result in some unexpected choices or situations that are not usual. This is not always agreeable as some fleets may not like their choices. You can always randomly determine who gets to pick first from a catagory if there is an issue.

Suggestion for playing more games: If everyone is willing from the start of the campaign. Sit down and play multiple games during the day for each campaign round. This works better with 4 players, just requires more match making with 6. Pick your attacks as normal and resolve those games, keeping track of veterans/destroyed, and so on. At this point the locations fate has not yet been decided. Record the victory margin for game 1 at each location.

For game 2 swap opponents and play again using your fleets in condition as they were at the start of the current round. You are going to play for the same territory your teamate just played for. So attacking Rebel becomes defending rebel and attacking Imperial becomes defending Imperial. Play this battle as normal and resolve battle score as normal, but do not count any Vet/destroyed results towards your next campaign round.

At this stage Add your victory margins for both games together and compare to the opposing teams total for each location to determine final fate of the territory in question. This includes base destruction etc... This may mean you could win and lose a game for the same territotry and still walk away with it after the wreckege settles into orbit. Game 1 of each round still determines your campaign pts, vets and destroyed units that will need to be repaired or left scarred and such for round #2.

The idea here is to promote more games in a single sitting for those who have to travel as my group does, or just add more games as we usually play more then one in an afternoon anyway. Also, this does help at times mitigate some of the inexperience that may be shown by some players in certain situations really lending to the team effort.

11 minutes ago, Wes Janson said:

I think the depth you are looking for would be better represented by your own rules all together. The Corellian campaign was never intended as much more then an excuse to have some linked games. In this regard it works great. It was also a good excuse to add more aces, also great. It was however not intended to be a complicated campaign system.

Hey Wes, welcome back! Had not seen you around here for a while... I hope all is good!

Hey Diablo same goes to you! All is good. Been so busy with kid #2 and my job I have not been around to partake in much of this. Started a new Corellian Conflict last weekend though so here goes.

16 minutes ago, Wes Janson said:

Optional House rule #1: Limit each ship in the fleet to being able to purchase only a single upgrade card each campaign round. This will stop some of the very early hard hitting combo builds that require 3+ cards to make work. Those who keep those ships alive will be able to benefit from them in the late stage or final battle of the campaign.

I really like this one.

On the objectives variation side something comes to me: why not assigning 1 base defense objective per base (some must be repeated) secretly at the star of each round. This would add some variation to these objectives if this is something desirable in the group.

We ended the second round and will go ahead with things as written as far as we could. When we started our second CC we probably add several house rules.

I don't mind that idea. Assign certain base defence objectives to each base sounds great. Anyone ever figure out if that armed station was correct in its armament?

5 minutes ago, Wes Janson said:

I don't mind that idea. Assign certain base defence objectives to each base sounds great. Anyone ever figure out if that armed station was correct in its armament?

Michael Gernes has stated its wrong, and will be subject to Errata.

18 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Michael Gernes has stated its wrong, and will be subject to Errata.

Wouldn't it be nice if we got some G-D errata up in here?

I ended up coming to the same conclusion regarding CC, its an interesting and basic framework but its primary value has been delivering a payload of new content. As a robust Campaign it is an abject failure. It has serious balance issues, no decent catch-up mechanic, is far too rigid in its fleet building and usage and links victory and defeat into a central mechanic that makes snowballing almost inevitable. Both campaigns we played were one-sided blowouts, the losing team quit after 2 rounds in the second campaign and no one could blame them.

What I have been kicking around in my head is a complete re-imagining of the campaign system using the map and some concepts from Star Wars: Rebellion.

We want to take away the link between winning/losing and the ability to field a viable fleet to fix the snowballing issue without making winning or losing meaningless.

Instead, winning and losing has an impact on a different metric that indirectly affects your resources.

We want an opportunity for both flexibility in fleet construction and more ways to include multiple players on single matches (final battle was the most fun part of campaign for some of our players). To that end, using the rebellion map, each Admiral would get 1000 points to spend on ships and squads but then be encouraged to deploy as multiple "task forces" to fulfil critical roles within the scope of the large campaign map.

Rebels would employ hidden movement unless they massed fleets above a certain point total in one place. rebels can launch raids on imperial bases for resources causing the empire to have to spread themselves thin to protect the core systems leading to small engagements on 3' x 3' (under 300 pt) but gradually building up to larger and larger engagements. Multiple commanders can send fleet elements they own to mass an attack and have all sorts of crazy situations where you have 1 guy commanding his ISD and squads he sent in to help a fleet of Kittens against a massed single-admiral attack from the enemy.

It needs a lot of work, tweaking and testing, but if the imperial objective is to find the rebel base and assault it and the rebel objective is to frustrate the imperials across a certain number of rounds (or successfully assault Coruscant), it would add a TON of variety and fun while using components from a readily available game.

My thoughts as well. Use the Star Wars Rebellion Game board for a different twist.

2 minutes ago, Wes Janson said:

My thoughts as well. Use the Star Wars Rebellion Game board for a different twist.

ooooooooooo.... fighting out Rebellion battles with Armada fleets...........

4 hours ago, Triangular said:

We finished the first try in round 2 after the Imperials lost 4 of 5 battles. In the last of them one entire fleet was tabled during "Show of Force". Now we started with a maybe better mix of players in the groups. And the first battle was a "Hyperlane Route" that brought huge advantage for the Rebels. So I think these special attacks are a kind of problem.

As the player that won that hyperlane raid, it was one good roll away from ending 40 ressources for imps and 20 for rebels. As it was, I won 80 for rebels. Still not a huge advantage I would say.

It might become a huge advantage for 2 reasons:

We started with 300 points and now rebels can buy a/f, pelta,mc30 for the next round.

You didn't show of force so you have to save up a turn to get a vic/glad/arquitens.

Might still be a bad idea for rebels to get one ship and next to no upgrades. We will see

10 hours ago, Xeletor said:

As the player that won that hyperlane raid, it was one good roll away from ending 40 ressources for imps and 20 for rebels. As it was, I won 80 for rebels. Still not a huge advantage I would say.

It might become a huge advantage for 2 reasons:

We started with 300 points and now rebels can buy a/f, pelta,mc30 for the next round.

You didn't show of force so you have to save up a turn to get a vic/glad/arquitens.

Might still be a bad idea for rebels to get one ship and next to no upgrades. We will see

The imbalancing issue of "Hyperlane Raid" is: you destroy a ship and gain Ressource for it, while your opponent loses some. The "lucky strike" killing an Arquitens-class Command Cruiser not just changed the outcome from +40:+20 to +80:+0, but to +80:-30 RP. In our campaign your opponent lost already his fighter wing. After refitting his losses he will have 15 RP for upgrades -- you will have 78 RP to buy new stuff.
That's a gap of 60 Fleetpoints for round 2 between the two fleets! That is a problem, and would even be one if we started with 400 FP. Their would have been no significant difference with a 40:20 result. And the gap results not from a brilliant maneuver or wonderful idea or otherwise superior gaming, but from a "lucky strike", killing a **** little Kitten! That means it could happen to everyone at every time.

BUT I'm not really disappointed. I just think, that special attacks are part of the problem why CC can be frustrating. Maybe it would be more balanced, it you would have to sell Campaign Points to receive additional Ressouce or Refit instead. That's all!

16 hours ago, Wes Janson said:

I think the depth you are looking for would be better represented by your own rules all together. The Corellian campaign was never intended as much more then an excuse to have some linked games. In this regard it works great. It was also a good excuse to add more aces, also great. It was however not intended to be a complicated campaign system.

Optional House rule #1: Limit each ship in the fleet to being able to purchase only a single upgrade card each campaign round. This will stop some of the very early hard hitting combo builds that require 3+ cards to make work. Those who keep those ships alive will be able to benefit from them in the late stage or final battle of the campaign.

Optional House Rule #2: No repeat objectives on the same team. Excluding campaign objectives which are situational. This ensures a more wide range of objective choices to be seen during your games with a limited player pool. Hopefully it will result in some unexpected choices or situations that are not usual. This is not always agreeable as some fleets may not like their choices. You can always randomly determine who gets to pick first from a catagory if there is an issue.

Suggestion for playing more games: If everyone is willing from the start of the campaign. Sit down and play multiple games during the day for each campaign round. This works better with 4 players, just requires more match making with 6. Pick your attacks as normal and resolve those games, keeping track of veterans/destroyed, and so on. At this point the locations fate has not yet been decided. Record the victory margin for game 1 at each location.

For game 2 swap opponents and play again using your fleets in condition as they were at the start of the current round. You are going to play for the same territory your teamate just played for. So attacking Rebel becomes defending rebel and attacking Imperial becomes defending Imperial. Play this battle as normal and resolve battle score as normal, but do not count any Vet/destroyed results towards your next campaign round.

At this stage Add your victory margins for both games together and compare to the opposing teams total for each location to determine final fate of the territory in question. This includes base destruction etc... This may mean you could win and lose a game for the same territotry and still walk away with it after the wreckege settles into orbit. Game 1 of each round still determines your campaign pts, vets and destroyed units that will need to be repaired or left scarred and such for round #2.

The idea here is to promote more games in a single sitting for those who have to travel as my group does, or just add more games as we usually play more then one in an afternoon anyway. Also, this does help at times mitigate some of the inexperience that may be shown by some players in certain situations really lending to the team effort.

I understand that the objective was never to have a complicated campaign system, but what we got is an almost non-existent game...unbalanced, non-thematic. I think it is a missed opportunity, and I wouln't like to see it as an expensive way FFG came up to sell some ace and objectives cards.

Thanks for your suggestions. Combo abuse was not an issue in our campaign, and I don't think objective variety would help with the monotony, but it might be worth a try.

The suggestion on how to play more games looks very nice, though. It is a bit of a handicap timewise (you need to get 4-6 people together for at least 4-5 hours, which is almost impossible for our playgroup) but I like the balancing implications.

15 hours ago, Hastatior said:

We want to take away the link between winning/losing and the ability to field a viable fleet to fix the snowballing issue without making winning or losing meaningless.

Instead, winning and losing has an impact on a different metric that indirectly affects your resources.

We want an opportunity for both flexibility in fleet construction and more ways to include multiple players on single matches (final battle was the most fun part of campaign for some of our players). To that end, using the rebellion map, each Admiral would get 1000 points to spend on ships and squads but then be encouraged to deploy as multiple "task forces" to fulfil critical roles within the scope of the large campaign map.

Rebels would employ hidden movement unless they massed fleets above a certain point total in one place. rebels can launch raids on imperial bases for resources causing the empire to have to spread themselves thin to protect the core systems leading to small engagements on 3' x 3' (under 300 pt) but gradually building up to larger and larger engagements. Multiple commanders can send fleet elements they own to mass an attack and have all sorts of crazy situations where you have 1 guy commanding his ISD and squads he sent in to help a fleet of Kittens against a massed single-admiral attack from the enemy.

It needs a lot of work, tweaking and testing, but if the imperial objective is to find the rebel base and assault it and the rebel objective is to frustrate the imperials across a certain number of rounds (or successfully assault Coruscant), it would add a TON of variety and fun while using components from a readily available game.

That is a very interesting idea you got there, though I think it would take quite a lot of time to develop and playtest, as it is an almost new game altogether.

I think they pitched the system exactly right. Very basic rules but they do add a great level of additional interest and strategy.

I think the modification of restricting each objective to one of each per team has merit.

But the beauty is if you have 6 players who do have the interest and time to play more complex campaign rules there is absolutely nothing stopping you.

I think the campaign is pretty fun. Armada is the first game I've ever really gotten into and the campaign wasn't complicated. In fact it was very basic and simple which was perfect for me. Not every player in armada is a seasoned miniatures vet that wants to get into some sort of rpg style overly complicated system. The next campaign box can always add more substance also.

Exactly. In our campaign it was the best we could do to maintain 3 games a week with everyones real life commitments. Yet the campaign did lend itself to some really fun facebook strategizing.

We had 6 players, 3 on each team. 3 games a week. After week 2 the rebels were in bad shape and there really is no way to get back in. It does need tweaking. I would like to see more smaller battles. quick games, say 200-300 point builds for resource gathering or intel. Build that into the game. I do not think it can ever be thematic. Still it fun to play even with all the issues.

I hope they keep an eye on the forums and think about some of these suggestions. I really like the idea of incorporating some Rebellion type game-play. It bothers me that a fleet can go from one end of the system to the other with no issues or that attacking a planet next to one containing a base has no repercussions. I love the campaign but see a huge amount of improvement they could use for the 2.0. I just hope that Armada is not the strawberry-blonde half child (red headed step child is the SW:LCG) and they put more time into another campaign; and that this is just not a trial for a X-wing campaign that will be their sole focus.

2 hours ago, Cusm said:

bothers me that a fleet can go from one end of the system to the other with no issues or that attacking a planet next to one containing a base has no repercussions.

I think the decision to not have movement limits was deliberate and was smart. It ensures you can change a matchup each game. For immersion purposes I tended to think of the battles we played as the turning points of the campaign. Lots of other skirmishes going on but these battles were where the stakes were high because both sides were fielding big resources and risking it.

I do think playing some small point battles though would add a fun flavor to the campaign though.

We've also seen that hyperspace in the Star Wars universe is ludicrously fast.

At the end of ESB we see that the Rebel fleet is far enough away that the entire galaxy can be seen. Compared to that - hopping to any system within a sector is nothing.