So I'm wondering where they'll base it. if it'll just be another system or if they'll move the timeline as well(I'm hoping for post RotJ).

Any thoughts/requests about what you'd like to see changed/ improved?

They are best off being vague about timelines. If a campaign only provides the setting, the timeline is left to the imagination of those who buy it, making it acceptable to a wider audience. If they make it timeline specific, they run the risk that some potential customers will find it unacceptable too their view of the Star Wars story.

No reason to limit their audience if they don't have to.

7 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

No reason to limit their audience if they don't have to.

The first thing you should always ask yourself about why and how a company will/should proceed, think money. I know there are the rare companies out there that don't do this and still find a modicum of success, but we are talking about a company that has to milk a franchise AND increase their base into a hobby that is on the wrong side of reach.

to note, I agree with @cynanbloodbane

I'm guessing we might end up getting something Lothal (SW Rebels) based. Show's coming to an end, and there are still a few characters involved that haven't been integrated into the game.

Let's face it - if they include a certain blue-skinned admiral it'll make it an automatic purchase for a huge proportion of the people that currently play the game. On top of that, it might be a way in for a segment of fans to pick up Armada now that the show is coming to an end. I can certainly see tweens who started with Rebels back in 2014 being ready to tell their own stories on tabletop three or four years on.

As to improvements over CC - I'd love to see some kind of planetary invasion metric, whereby success is dependent on the amount of transports the attacker keeps alive. Perhaps each faction has a set number of troop transports (that don't count for activations) that are deployed for invasion scenarios. Then you could have an interesting take/re-take situation whereby key planets keep changing hands.

I think it would be fun to do a narrative Lothal Campaign that builds up to a guaranteed "All or Nothing" battle.

Each fight in the campaign is about putting together forces for this last battle: Rebels nabbing Y-Wings, rebels attacking Interdictor prototype, Empire ambushing rebel gathering, etc.

The forces that survive these various scenarios are put together as the final fleet in the climactic battle.

I hope that the next campaign takes place in whatever system would be the next one connected to the hyper lane and that the two maps can be connected for an even bigger campaign.

I just want the next one to use a map. Not sure how, but actually have limited paths of travel. Like the SW:Battlefront 2 map.

2 hours ago, Church14 said:

I just want the next one to use a map. Not sure how, but actually have limited paths of travel. Like the SW:Battlefront 2 map.

that actually doesn't sound terrible.

2 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

that actually doesn't sound terrible.

Indeed, 'tis preferable.

Like EAW.

In the SW universe, you can pretty much jump anywhere from A to B if you like, including waaaaay outside the galaxy as we see in RotJ. In Rogue On e we even see them set a new unexpected course while in hyperspace.

However, hyperspace lanes are a thing. So there should be a difference between the two.

For example, if you travel between two systems with no hyperspace lane there could be a penalty of some kind (pay resources, roll for mishap, etc.).

23 minutes ago, Democratus said:

In the SW universe, you can pretty much jump anywhere from A to B if you like, including waaaaay outside the galaxy as we see in ESB . In Rogue On e we even see them set a new unexpected course while in hyperspace.

However, hyperspace lanes are a thing. So there should be a difference between the two.

For example, if you travel between two systems with no hyperspace lane there could be a penalty of some kind (pay resources, roll for mishap, etc.).

FTFY.

I'd like a simple system like CC, no maps, but less ways to fall behind or more ways to catch up. 3 campaigns fell apart and retiring fleets didn't help.

22 hours ago, Rearadmiralsdoitinspace said:

I'm guessing we might end up getting something Lothal (SW Rebels) based. Show's coming to an end, and there are still a few characters involved that haven't been integrated into the game.

Let's face it - if they include a certain blue-skinned admiral it'll make it an automatic purchase for a huge proportion of the people that currently play the game. On top of that, it might be a way in for a segment of fans to pick up Armada now that the show is coming to an end. I can certainly see tweens who started with Rebels back in 2014 being ready to tell their own stories on tabletop three or four years on.

As to improvements over CC - I'd love to see some kind of planetary invasion metric, whereby success is dependent on the amount of transports the attacker keeps alive. Perhaps each faction has a set number of troop transports (that don't count for activations) that are deployed for invasion scenarios. Then you could have an interesting take/re-take situation whereby key planets keep changing hands.

In regards to the Planetary Invasion Metric you described ^ I'm not sure about the Rebels but, ISDs are all-in-one platforms that can deploy anything from pre-fabricated garrisons, walkers and troops.

Remember Vader's: "Prepare for surface attack..." in ESB. I don't recall having seen any Imperial transport ships - only ISDs.

But yes, planets that can be taken, re-taken etc. very interesting although these planets would probably need to be of significant value to be worth it.

Whoops, just remembered, in RO we saw an ISD in atmosphere - which means that the ISD itself could act as a mobile surface-side 'garrison'. Crazy stuff!!!

6 hours ago, Alpha Xg1 said:

In regards to the Planetary Invasion Metric you described ^ I'm not sure about the Rebels but, ISDs are all-in-one platforms that can deploy anything from pre-fabricated garrisons, walkers and troops.

Very true... darn-pointy jacks-of-all-trades!

Perhaps give invasion-capable ships a squadron penalty (or no squad value whatsoever) if their logistical-capabilities are being directed towards landing/beachhead control duties?

11 minutes ago, Rearadmiralsdoitinspace said:

Very true... darn-pointy jacks-of-all-trades!

Perhaps give invasion-capable ships a squadron penalty (or no squad value whatsoever) if their logistical-capabilities are being directed towards landing/beachhead control duties?

Or just require a specific logistical capacity to capture any given planet, based on planet size and resources.

14 hours ago, Xeletor said:

I'd like a simple system like CC, no maps, but less ways to fall behind or more ways to catch up. 3 campaigns fell apart and retiring fleets didn't help.

Agreed. They could change up the gameplay instead for making it similar to cc. Instead of culminating in a aoo, there could be other winning conditions to fulfil in the new campaign(like imps must hold x no. Of worlds for y turns, rebels must visit z worlds in a turns, etc.)(and maybe use aoo as a special mission that someone can start midgame) The original cc winning conditions also felt more like a one-time ropleplay storytelling for that sector than a repetitive format for every new campaign, so a new style/story for each campaign would be more vibrant to armada!

Also allows for rebalancing of the bad part of the cc rules(when one side lags behind badly, etc.)

Interestingly, the aoo looks like an epic-type hyperspace objective. I wonder if ffg are making a variant of this and other objectives for when epic and ssd arrive

I'll setup a separate topic for this

15 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Or just require a specific logistical capacity to capture any given planet, based on planet size and resources.

Hrm...

Well, the thing is, the pre-fabricated garrisons, walkers, troops etc. were part of an ISD's standard complement. I.E. ISDs still carried their full complement of fighters/bombers/gunboats/Skip-ray Blastboats, shuttles etc.

They are VERY well resourced!

13 hours ago, Alpha Xg1 said:

Hrm...

Well, the thing is, the pre-fabricated garrisons, walkers, troops etc. were part of an ISD's standard complement. I.E. ISDs still carried their full complement of fighters/bombers/gunboats/Skip-ray Blastboats, shuttles etc.

They are VERY well resourced!

Indeed. The ISD seems custom designed for planetary occupation, suppression, and blockade rather than fighting a conventional war.

This may explain why they weren't all-powerful in stand up fights like Scarif.

At this point, I'll just fire up my PC, and play Empire at War.....?

What I wanted put of CC was just a little bit more strategic and logistic considerations. Like, *assigning* a location a base defense objective that doesn't change when that location is attacked, and some nod to a system's position making a difference (though in Star Wars that usually doesn't matter much, true).

I don't need a ground combat mechanic -- although something very basic and simple for planetary conquest would be okay. It might make sense for a campaign that was about the Empire going on the offensive in a sector. Maybe you get victory points every turn that certain planets are (or are not) under Imperial control.

On 8/1/2017 at 2:50 PM, Xeletor said:

I'd like a simple system like CC, no maps, but less ways to fall behind or more ways to catch up. 3 campaigns fell apart and retiring fleets didn't help.

On 8/2/2017 at 4:52 AM, Muelmuel said:

Agreed. They could change up the gameplay instead for making it similar to cc. Instead of culminating in a aoo..

I made a mini campaign loosely based on the CC rules. It was mapless and meant to be shorter but more volatile so that fleets would change more and that things destroyed would feel like they were destroyed. I posted it here. It does end in a kind of aoo though.

New Campaign with Executor Super Star Destroyer would be nice.

I find it rather suprising that Rebellion has not yet been mentioned.

3 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:

I find it rather suprising that Rebellion has not yet been mentioned.

Playing Rebellion conflicts in Armada wouldn't be fun. Almost all Rebellion battles are lop-sided. Love me some Rebellion though, it's my favorite game and the upcoming expansion "fixes" every issue I had with it.