Escalation Campaign Concept

By Stay On The Leader, in X-Wing

Posted at

  • A 'light touch' campaign system that provides a framework for players to work towards a long term victory, rather than a bespoke narrative.
  • Card decks would be used for 90% of the game material. Cards would present the players with their choice of which scenario to play next, and give the details of that scenario and the rewards available for victory in the scenario.
  • Players manage their fleets in a style similar to an Escalation tournament, with parts or all of their fleets used in each particular scenario according to the points limit of the scenario.
  • Initial concept is for Rebel vs Imperial. Scum ships would be introduced through earning the ability to add a Scum pilot to your Rebel or Imperial squad.
  • The outcome of the scenarios provides a combination of Victory Points and additional Squadbuilding Points.
  • The balance of these rewards will vary by scenario but in general the loser of the scenario will be given either more Squadbuilding points than the winner or some other bonus so that the games shouldn't 'snowball'. Winning a scenario should score you victory points but make it harder to win the next one, not easier.
  • The scenarios escalate through three stages - Skirmish, Rebellion and War.

Skirmish: 60-100pts - relatively low VP rewards, focus on assistance in squadbuilding
Rebellion: 120-180pts - moderate VP rewards, focus on tactical assistance in scenarios
War: 200-300pts - high VP rewards as the fate of the galaxy is decided in mass battles

  • Precise campaign length would vary depending on the rate at which VP is generated, but should be approximately 10-12 scenarios.

Initial thoughts? I'm just trying to force some hazy ideas I've had over the last few months down into black and white.


EDIT: 'ported some additional thoughts up here from down below...
OTHER REWARDS

I want it to be a consideration in the scenarios players choose. I want them to balance the rules of the scenario, the victory points on offer, the squadbuilding points on offer, and then the other bonuses provided. Do they chase victory points or take the mission that will give them no victory points allow them to recruit Dengar to their roster (maybe even negative victory points for consorting with such disreputable characters)?
These are the first ideas off the top of my head...

SQUADBUILDING EFFECTS - relatively common

  • Refit - before the next scenario you may remove all upgrades from a pilot in your roster
  • Reassign - before the next scenario you may remove a pilot from your roster
Although it's an Escalation concept campaign I want to give players some flexibility to cycle out loadouts or pilots that aren't working for them. These will be quite useful 'rewards' to give to the losing player in a scenario. You could imagine the Imperials losing a scenario and being forced to Reassign a pilot of their choice out of their roster as a scapegoat, for example, but that would also be an opportunity to rejig a roster that's losing.
BATTLEFIELD EFFECTS - relatively rare
  • Reinforcements Token - during a scenario, at the beginning of a deployment phase, you may discard this token. If you do so add 1x Blue Squadron Novice (Rebel) or 2x Academy Pilot (Scum) to your squad for that scenario. Those pilots are not added to your roster and do not count towards your points total or MOV for purposes of that scenario.
  • Ambush Token - during a scenario, at the beginning of the deployment phase, you may discard this token. If you do so you may choose to deploy any or all of your ships as an 'Ambush'. Ambush ships deploy as thought they had PS12 and may be deployed anywhere on the table outside of Range 3 of enemy ships.
  • Scum & Villainy Token - when squadbuilding you may discard this token to add a Scum & Villainy pilot to your roster (paying the normal points cost for that pilot)
I want players to be able to have some tactical things they can add to change the rules of a scenario in their favour, which is both a key element in the 'rubber-banding' of the campaign structure and a way to make repeated playthroughs of the campaign deck have more variety.
Edited by Stay On The Leader
Posted at

My respect for you...

Is much too high

Edited by Celestial Lizards
Posted at

I like where you are going with this. Keep it simple, but make it engaging and new for players. Are the scenarios going to be drawn from officially published documents, or will they be custom? I like the idea of some scenarios having a time (round) limit, but most of them being unlimited in order to differentiate from the 75 minute tournament standard. I have a few more questions.

When you say "War" is 200-300 points, do you have Epic ships in mind, or is this going to remain at a dogfighting level? Also, will some of the scenarios utilize huge ships, either armed or as obstacles? Either would be really cool.

When you say "10-12 scenarios" as the length of the campaign, do you mean that each player plays 10-12 games? That will take a LONG time, and likely result in drop out. Or if there are teams of Imperials and Rebels, 3 people per team, for example, each player would play 4 games, totaling 12? Or is this just a 1v1 type of thing, where you play the same person over and over because you're contesting a sector, and fleets remain more or less the same throughout the campaign?

Posted at

I've had some similar ideas in the past... here's a link to my 'Squadron Commander' campaign doc. Feel free to draw from or borrow any ideas in there. I think that the squadron commander system as represented in that doc is probably too complicated for mass market release. (pilot progression in particular is probably too unwieldy)

I like where your head's at here, though. Open-ended campaign rather than railroad, being careful about snowball effects, and fleet management are all ideas that I've liked for a while. Using a card system for mission selection could be really cool, too.

I think the real tricks here are:

  • Scenario concept and design
  • Easy but engaging fleet management & economics
  • Emergent narrative design (campaign should feel like you are writing/making your own story)

One aspect of Squadron Commander that I think you should think seriously about is the mechanic I have for the end of the campaign. Essentially, each player has a base, which other players can attack and destroy in 'finale' missions. To get the chance to play a finale mission as an attacker, you have to win several other missions that lead up to it. And if you lose as the attacker, your own base is open to retaliation. It's a comeback victory mechanic designed to keep players engaged in the campaign even if they are losing - no matter how down they are, if they pull out a win as the defender in a finale, they could come back to win the campaign. I liked that aspect, because even in the absence of a true snowball effect, players can still feel like things are hopeless if they're being out-VP'd by their opponent. Finale-retaliations give the losing players a realistic path to victory, while the leading player is still rewarded with the first chance to win.

Posted at
4 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

I like where you are going with this. Keep it simple, but make it engaging and new for players. Are the scenarios going to be drawn from officially published documents, or will they be custom? I like the idea of some scenarios having a time (round) limit, but most of them being unlimited in order to differentiate from the 75 minute tournament standard. I have a few more questions.

When you say "War" is 200-300 points, do you have Epic ships in mind, or is this going to remain at a dogfighting level? Also, will some of the scenarios utilize huge ships, either armed or as obstacles? Either would be really cool.

When you say "10-12 scenarios" as the length of the campaign, do you mean that each player plays 10-12 games? That will take a LONG time, and likely result in drop out. Or if there are teams of Imperials and Rebels, 3 people per team, for example, each player would play 4 games, totaling 12? Or is this just a 1v1 type of thing, where you play the same person over and over because you're contesting a sector, and fleets remain more or less the same throughout the campaign?

First paragraph: probably mostly custom though some of the scenarios could be 'inspired by' (i.e. a rip-off of) the official ones.

Second paragraph: I think huge ship requirements are a barrier to entry. I could see optional rules to include them rather than being the default. You'd play on 3x6 mats. One idea would be a fixed 'final showdown' 300pt battle which could feature attacking an epic command ship or fixed emplacement.

10-12 games, which I think is comparable to an IA campaign length? I see it as something you and your friend would play through over several evenings, playing 2-3 games a night. Definitely in my head it's like a 'sector defence' thing.

Posted at
23 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

  • The balance of these rewards will vary by scenario but in general the loser of the scenario will be given either more Squadbuilding points than the winner or some other bonus so that the games shouldn't 'snowball'. Winning a scenario should score you victory points but make it harder to win the next one, not easier.
  • The scenarios escalate through three stages - Skirmish, Rebellion and War.

Skirmish: 60-100pts - relatively low VP rewards, focus on assistance in squadbuilding
Rebellion: 120-180pts - moderate VP rewards, focus on tactical assistance in scenarios
War: 200-300pts - high VP rewards as the fate of the galaxy is decided in mass battles

  • Precise campaign length would vary depending on the rate at which VP is generated, but should be approximately 10-12 scenarios.

Initial thoughts? I'm just trying to force some hazy ideas I've had over the last few months down into black and white.

As Parakitor pointed out, 10-12 scenarios is a lot. For me, that would take a year, since I only get to play once a month.

First of all, I don't think that is an intrinsic problem, and it would NOT drive me away from this style of play. OTOH, while actual games shouldn't get harder, maybe consistently winning games reduces the number of encounters.

2 advantages:

1. The winner is rewarded for winning both tactically and strategically.

2. If a player is consistently losing, for whatever reason, the campaign ends faster so they are not stuck in a long-term slog-fest. Then, they can refresh, rebuild, and try something new.

Posted at
6 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

First paragraph: probably mostly custom though some of the scenarios could be 'inspired by' (i.e. a rip-off of) the official ones.

Second paragraph: I think huge ship requirements are a barrier to entry. I could see optional rules to include them rather than being the default. You'd play on 3x6 mats. One idea would be a fixed 'final showdown' 300pt battle which could feature attacking an epic command ship or fixed emplacement.

10-12 games, which I think is comparable to an IA campaign length? I see it as something you and your friend would play through over several evenings, playing 2-3 games a night. Definitely in my head it's like a 'sector defence' thing.

I agree. Huge ships are barrier, and not essential. Larger scale battles without Huge ships are still very different tactically than smaller battles.

I like the 3x6 best. Also changes the dynamics quite a bit. Bad tactical movement choices can mean a good ship is out of combat for turns . It makes deployment much more meaningful, and allows additional bait-and-switch tactics. I have lost games because a key ship could never manage to get into the zone and engage!

3x6 also allows long edge/short edge deployment options, which changes tactics.

OTOH, unless all the games were low points, 2-3 might be an over-estimation. A 300-point battle is probably a night's worth of play.

Posted at

All this is pouring raw out of my head, but I see 4-5 skirmish games, 4-5 rebellion games, 2-3 war games.

Posted at

When can I play?

Posted at
OTHER REWARDS
I want it to be a consideration in the scenarios players choose. I want them to balance the rules of the scenario, the victory points on offer, the squadbuilding points on offer, and then the other bonuses provided. Do they chase victory points or take the mission that will give them no victory points allow them to recruit Dengar to their roster (maybe even negative victory points for consorting with such disreputable characters)?
These are the first ideas off the top of my head...

SQUADBUILDING EFFECTS - relatively common

  • Refit - before the next scenario you may remove all upgrades from a pilot in your roster
  • Reassign - before the next scenario you may remove a pilot from your roster
Although it's an Escalation concept campaign I want to give players some flexibility to cycle out loadouts or pilots that aren't working for them. These will be quite useful 'rewards' to give to the losing player in a scenario. You could imagine the Imperials losing a scenario and being forced to Reassign a pilot of their choice out of their roster as a scapegoat, for example, but that would also be an opportunity to rejig a roster that's losing.
BATTLEFIELD EFFECTS - relatively rare
  • Reinforcements Token - during a scenario, at the beginning of a deployment phase, you may discard this token. If you do so add 1x Blue Squadron Novice (Rebel) or 2x Academy Pilot (Scum) to your squad for that scenario. Those pilots are not added to your roster and do not count towards your points total or MOV for purposes of that scenario.
  • Ambush Token - during a scenario, at the beginning of the deployment phase, you may discard this token. If you do so you may choose to deploy any or all of your ships as an 'Ambush'. Ambush ships deploy as thought they had PS12 and may be deployed anywhere on the table outside of Range 3 of enemy ships.
  • Scum & Villainy Token - when squadbuilding you may discard this token to add a Scum & Villainy pilot to your roster (paying the normal points cost for that pilot)
I want players to be able to have some tactical things they can add to change the rules of a scenario in their favour, which is both a key element in the 'rubber-banding' of the campaign structure and a way to make repeated playthroughs of the campaign deck have more variety.
Edited by Stay On The Leader