So I normally just lurk around and read what others have to say, but I had an idea I wanted to run past you guys so I figured I throw it out and see what people think.

I recently got Imperial Assault and have been enjoying it quite a bit, despite ugly stormtrooper painting on my part. I have also been playing Endless Space 2 and thought that some of the mechanics could fit pretty well with a join IA/Armada CC campaign. Namely, the idea of Manpower delegated to individual ship stats and how this leads to ground-assault actions.

For those unfamiliar, Manpower is a stat assigned to different ships in Endless Space. The manpower of a ship indicates the troops it can carry for use in, say, an assault on an enemy planet. Some ships are designed specifically for ship combat and inherently have low manpower, while others are designated troop carriers. Others still are battle-carriers and do a bit of everything.

So my thought was the following: assign each ship type a manpower rating. This could be, for example, 5 points or less for a CR90 to something like 10-20 points for a Star Destroyer. Your fleet would then have a total manpower rating, looking along the lines of anywhere between 20-60 or so. After winning a battle in space, a ground assault would have to take place to capture the area. Your manpower rating in the fleet would then correspond to the deployment points for an imperial assault skirmish. The defender would also have a planetary manpower rating that differs depending on the state of the planet, e.g. a base might be worth 40-60 points for example.

After a skirmish takes place, manpower would be lowered in the fleet if any units are completely destroyed. Lost your heavy stormtrooper regiment? Their deployment cost is deducted from your manpower and you end with (example numbers) 40/60 of your total manpower for the fleet. You would then have a percentage or number of manpower "replenished" after each round. For simplicity this could just be a flat number, or for some complexity it could be based on ownership factors of your factions. For example for each diplomat you have it increases manpower replenishment. This could even be different per faction, e.g. the Empire receives higher replenishment for having more bases while the rebels receive higher for losing planets (to simulate persecuted populations rebelling against tyranny).

Now I realize that there are issues to overcome to make this worth anybody's time:

- Complexity - too many rules to remember and nobody wants to do it

-Arbitrariness - there needs to be some reason for having a battle, e.g. because it is "fun". If it becomes a slog and isn't fun, then why have it?

-Balance - if one side steamrolls another, why bother?

To address these issues the following can be introduced:

-Complexity - the manpower rating is relatively simple and plays well into both games. You'd have to have a set manpower rating for individual ships, but you'd only have to track one number per fleet. The two games are otherwise independent of eachother and don't interfere with one-another's rulesets. Additionally, for simplicity sake you could arrange a couple of defined "base", "Outpost" and "undefended" skirmish maps that function as your battlegrounds for any skirmish fought, to speed setup along.

-Arbitrary - to prevent fatigue and necessity of fighting land battles every round, you could implement an "autoresolve" function for land battles. The defender would be able to choose if he wants to defend the planet in person, or could choose to do a Risk-style dice roll with dice determined in part by manpower ratings. For example, every 10 manpower would add one red dice. Defenders can roll two red dice while attackers can roll three, but ties are defender wins. For each dice roll win (number of hit symbols determines winner) you reduce manpower by 10 (or otherwise) until depleted.

-Balance - 1. A base set of manpower replenishment per turn would prevent a fleet from being incapable of invading something. Let's say Fleet 1 attacked and lost its entire manpower. It then chooses to attack an undefended, non-base planet knowing that the next turn will replenish 10 manpower as a minimum, allowing it to attack the 10 manpower planet with a fair chance of succeeding.

2. Even a hopelessly outnumbered force has a vested interest in fighting back, so as to damage the manpower of the enemy as much as possible. A 10 manpower defense can still inflict losses in an otherwise doomed defense, thus impeding the future efforts of the attacker.

I see several possible pros to this, beyond just combining the two games:

-By assigning manpower stats to ships you can encourage less common, possibly more thematic, fleet design. Really want to run a three star destroyer fleet but know it's ridiculous? Well, now you can factor in the manpower rating of the fleet in the decision: weakened for space battles, but a good planet assault fleet. You can make new fleet designs encouraged by making otherwise less-used ships good for planetary assault.

-The auto-resolve aspect allows you to just play a straight Armada game with an added twist, if you so choose.

-Thematic. Darth Vader is your commander? Send him on an away mission during a planetary assault. Make the enemy fear the fleet that carries him.

-Could add strategic depth to assault choices in CC. Tired of everyone going just for Shipyards? Add manpower stats to other planets/rewards to make them tempting targets.

So... obviously the numbers need playtesting, but I think this could work. Any thoughts?

Thanks for reading!

It's a good idea but maybe it could be more easy for you (at least, for the goal that you are looking for) to combined Armada and Star War Rebellion instead. I didn't play yet Imperial Assault but I think this game could be long too. So until you could have a complete weekend, there could be a rough time issue.

With Rebellion, you could resolve ground combat more easely and really more quickly. Maybe less funnier this way but this will save you alot of time.

I really like the idea! The only issue I can think of that must be considered before you implement this is the issue of time, as DOMSWAT911 pointed out above. Armada battles take about 2 hours, and IA skirmishes take 30 minutes. If you go to play them right after each other, then you have to prepare for around 3 hours of total time spent at the place of play. 2.5 for the games (at best) and other time for set up and dismantling.

If you can get over that, then I think if people are interested, it's a nice addition. Another thing to consider: Do you take the manpower ratings of the intact fleet for your ground assault, or only that of the surviving ships? I assume that the Ground Assault takes place after the space battle, right?

Concerning Arbitrariness: I assume that the point of the land battle is to add an aspect to the game, and that if you do not assault the planet, you don't capture it or get its resources. So, if you don't want to capture the planet, must you assault it? Furthermore, my current understanding of CC is that you only capture a planet if you build outposts or bases there, and that if you don't, the planet stays neutral. . . is this correct? Assuming it is, then that means that the Empire is limited to 7 or so planets, and that after that you can't capture any more. So, do you desire to follow that, where ground battles become pointless side-conflicts over a planet you'll never capture, or do you intend to remove that restriction and make it so that any planet whereat a ground assault is won belongs to the victor? Personally that would make more sense: why fight a battle in a place you aren't going to conquer? This of course assumes that planets stay neutral without bases in a default CC game. If they don't, then you can ignore this bit.

Good luck implementing this, if you ever do, and please let us know how it turns out!

10 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

...The only issue I can think of that must be considered before you implement this is the issue of time, as DOMSWAT911 pointed out above. Armada battles take about 2 hours, and IA skirmishes take 30 minutes. If you go to play them right after each other, then you have to prepare for around 3 hours of total time spent at the place of play. 2.5 for the games (at best) and other time for set up and dismantling.

If you can get over that, then I think if people are interested, it's a nice addition. Another thing to consider: Do you take the manpower ratings of the intact fleet for your ground assault, or only that of the surviving ships? I assume that the Ground Assault takes place after the space battle, right?

Concerning Arbitrariness: I assume that the point of the land battle is to add an aspect to the game, and that if you do not assault the planet, you don't capture it or get its resources... Personally that would make more sense: why fight a battle in a place you aren't going to conquer? This of course assumes that planets stay neutral without bases in a default CC game. If they don't, then you can ignore this bit.

Thanks for the feedback! To your first point, I think that's where the autoresolve comes in to play. If both people agree to it, you can fight the skirmish. If neither or one doesn't really want to, they can still have the implementation of the ground assault via the Risk-style series of dice rolls dependent on manpower. This gives you the option to play a skirmish if you and your partner(s) want to, and to ignore it if you just want to save some time during that particular session.

To your second point, I imagine it as claiming control without necessarily setting up a base or outpost. Again, this could be where a manpower resource comes in. A defenseless, baseless planet may not have much, but it could be a source of manpower to bolster your fleets for an assault on a more heavily fortified location. Something not unlike how resource matches e.g. Show of Force currently work: spend a turn taking resources rather than going for a straight victory.

Also, there is a continuous reason to engage enemy fleets so as to damage them for future battles. A battleship fleet might hunt down an invasion fleet, or a skirmish fleet might try to engage an invasion fleet to damage their troop carriers and inhibit their ability to perform future invasions. You asked if fleet losses would impact manpower: the answer is yes, and I think this would add a further strategic element for consideration. An outclassed fleet might nevertheless cripple an invasion force enough to increase the difficulty of an invasion or outright deny it. I think this might help deal with some of the steamrolling that starts happening in CC when one side racks up a few victories.