The Sykwalker Campaign is still not strategically challenging enough? Today I had another ingenious idea: BRINGING REAL SPACE TO THE CORELLIAN CONFLICT!

What bugs me for a long time now about CC is that the map is in essence a fraud . There are no real spacial relations in CC. One could throw the map out of the window and merely use a flat list instead. The spatial relations do not matter. The reason for this is that fleets that would have locations and limited movement would make a campaign of 6 players where each campaign round every single player is able to fight a battle impossible. So, it is understandable that FFG chose the rules how they are in standard CC. However, there is a IMO better solution. Here is the the one I entertain at the moment: In essence this solution is to have the spatial relationships to determine initiative , not to limit fleet movement .

1. A grid linking the planets of CC must be used. Something like each planet is linked to 3 to 5 planets.
2. During campaign setup, each player choses a location for his fleet.
3. If an assault on a location is declared, fleets are chosen as usual for the battle by both sides, but both participating parties checks how many steps in the grid the chosen fleets are away from the location declared. Whoever is closer, has initiative. In case of a draw, the assaulting party has initiative.
4. There are 2 special zones: One consists in the the green hyperspace lane + the corellian system, the other one consists in the yellow hyperlane + the corellian system. The distance between different planets in one and the same special zone is always 1.
5. After a battle the victorious fleet has its location at the location of the battle. The losing side has to retreat to a location in distance 1.

Of course, this needs a small overhaul of the The Skywalker Campaign as presented above (especially considering Special and Base Assaults). This will follow next week. Finally, there is space in the the Corellian System!

I have actually remapped the entire Corellian Sector onto a hex map. I'll have to find the image and upload it later today. I did also notice that the square grid within the Corellian System had larger squares, so I remapped the planets accordingly.

One thing I have tried is to see if the game could be played using a different style of strategic movement. Would this change your view on relative positioning of the planets?

On 2.3.2018 at 2:04 PM, Fraggle_Rock said:

[...]

One thing I have tried is to see if the game could be played using a different style of strategic movement. Would this change your view on relative positioning of the planets?

I am not sure whether I understand your question. Could you explain it a bit, please?

Sure thing. Within the normal "Movement Rules" for Corellian Conflict, you can attack any system on the map. My question relates to movement specific to either a) number of jump lanes between planets or b) overlay a hex grid and allow more free movement.

Example: Let us assume we are using Hyperspace "jump lanes" to move from system to system. Let us also assume most fleets can move 2 jumps / strategic turn.
Phemis is connected to Polanis (1 jump) and Polanis is connected to Raider's Point (1 jump). Let's say that Ackbar's Fleet is at Phemis and can declare an assault. Ackbar can attack either Polanis or Raider's Point as they are both within his "jump distance." Screed's Fleet can defend as they are located at Truuzdann, but Thrawn cannot as he is at least 3 jump points away.

Second example: Instead of Jump lanes we overlay the entire sector map with a Hex Grid. Phemis is distance 3 from Polanis and distance 6 from Raider's Point. Assuming your strategic range is twice your max movement of your slowest ship, Ackbar in an MC80-H1 could not reach Raider's Point (max range: 4), but if his fleet was composed of only CR90's, he could reach Nubia (8 hexes away). Screed could reach either system with his Gladiator fleet (range of 6), but Thrawn with the Chimaera could not (assume he is at Duro - distance 7).

The question posed is how would this impact how fleets are moved / positioned. Would it impact the game in a positive or negative way? Systems now have strategic locations to deploy your forces from. It would add some housekeeping and require a few rules, but I wanted to throw this idea out in response to your concern regarding spacial relations of systems.

I believe this would put some interesting operational moves into the game, but it could also open the door for a problem in which a fleet can assault a system without any defender able to defend. It may have some systems usually ignored put back into play though...

Exactly this is a threshold I don't want to cross. For a multiplayer campaign it is not acceptable IMO that there are players who don't get a game during a campaign round.
As soon as we give up the principle that each player gets a game each game round, I think CC is not the best base. I would recommend to setup a larger scale campaign instead - maybe something like @Undeadguy 's GCW campaign.
My solution to the problem I will post later this day (if FFG finally manages to get this forum working properly again so that I can login with my desktop computer and not merely my mobile phone) .
Then I will post all the rules compiled in one neatly designed PDF - including a revised map.

Finally, I am done. I proudly release the (completely untested ) ver. 1.0 of The Skywalker Campaign. Click here for the neatly designed PDF (ISD inside! Promise!) with the complete change of rules! I have removed all the rules from this thread and updated the first post witht he link to the PDF. The biggest change in this document are the new movement rules. And for them you need the revised map. It is this beauty:

On this map I have removed all the information of the original map that was irrelevant for The Skywalker Campaign. I have added the objectives to each location and a short description of the benefits for the ALL-Out-Offensive. Most importantly, there are the movement routes on the map.

You can click here to download the revised map!

I want to give this campaign a test run on VASSAL, after my current VASSAL CC has ended (which will take something about 2 more months I think). Look out for a thread where I will ask for participants!

Cool very interesting. Me and my friend are looking to buy CC in the near future. :-)

Quote

"The imperial team places merely one occupation sticker on Corellia."

A team can merely declare a special assault, if its total fleet points are at least 60 points behind the opposing team (scarred units count half).

When you say "merely," do you mean "only"?

I mean the thesaurus says they're synonyms, but I've never seen it used this way, and it's confusing me. Just making sure.

On 10.3.2018 at 11:18 PM, Cavkov said:

Cool very interesting. Me and my friend are looking to buy CC in the near future. :-)

You really should. It is a great expansion. No matter whether you use my Skywalker Campaign or not.

On 12.3.2018 at 5:25 AM, grandmoffjoe said:

When you say "merely," do you mean "only"?

I mean the thesaurus says they're synonyms, but I've never seen it used this way, and it's confusing me. Just making sure.

Yeah, seems my English needs a lot of improvement. I have used it like "only". @GhostofNobodyInParticular already told me about that problem. I forgot to change it during the last revision. I will change it in the next one. Thank you for the feedback!

Do people fancy to test this beauty on Vassal?

Great job @Darth Veggie this looks really interesting; will probably try this next CC run.

On 20/02/2018 at 3:27 PM, Cusm said:

This really captures what I think most of us wanted in the CC. I have always thought that FFG needs to go back and bring more Rebellion into the next CC.

I agree, it would be great if elements of Rebellion (such a good game) could be incorporated into what has been done here. I'd probably try and have a short round before the Armada matches whereby each Admiral is represented by a Rebellion standee and has a round of assigned missions which affect the subsequent round(s) of Armada.

On 29.3.2018 at 5:42 PM, drumtier said:

Do people fancy to test this beauty on Vassal?

Yes, I will give it a test run on Vassal as soon as my current CC Vassal campaign is over. Of course, if you are interested, oh my father-in-law of Armada, you have a special seat reserved in this test run!

On 29.3.2018 at 6:50 PM, Kendraam said:

Great job @Darth Veggie this looks really interesting; will probably try this next CC run.

I agree, it would be great if elements of Rebellion (such a good game) could be incorporated into what has been done here. I'd probably try and have a short round before the Armada matches whereby each Admiral is represented by a Rebellion standee and has a round of assigned missions which affect the subsequent round(s) of Armada.

Thank you! Tell me how it was, if you run it.

Version 1.1 is released (links as always in the initial post). Mostly it is updating the rules to the new FAQ. This gave me some headache, because some of the options in appendix B were quite similar to the new FAQ, but not the same (most of the time I was a bit more radical). In the end, I decided to stay as close to the official rules as I can be in order to avoid confusion and a growing gap between this campaign and the official rules. The list of changes are the following:

• No special relay nerf anymore
• No special Yavaris nerf anymore
• No special Gallant Haven nerf anymore
• No special Avenger nerf anymore
• Sloane nerf is mitigated (after the official Yavaris nerf was not so drastic as mine, I felt that the Sloane nerf should not be as strong as I initially had it)
• Flotilla nerf is now the official tournament regulations
• Phemis/Most Wanted location changed: In Most Wanted the second player now does not have an objective ship. However, the first player gets bonus points, if his objective ship survives (because the flotilla-cannot-be-objective-ships nerf is no longer in the campaign, I decided for a different approach here; one that even feels a bit more thematic)
• Minimal Pass Rule as an option is gone (after experimenting a lot with Bail and Pryce I feel that such a rule is not as urgently needed as before; I'd still prefer to have it, but staying closer to the official rules seemed to me due to the mitigated first player bias more important value than the great benefit of the minimal pass rule).
• Instead there is the option in appendix B that Bail is replaced by a generic rebel officer called Republic Senator and Pryce by a generic imperial officer called Imperial Governor. Both have the limit of once per fleet (not per side).

Let us give the new forum some support: I have updated this campaing and will use the new forum to report on it. New features are:

• Everything has been updated to 1.5 Armada rules

• All the rules of the CC booklet that are neccessary have been included. Hence, there is no need anymore for going through two different documents. Nevertheless, all The Skywalker Campaign specific rules are printed in italics for easy reference.

• Changes to core Armada (mostly to the objectives) could be removed thanks to the 1.5 pass rules and the plethora of new (Rebellion in the Rim) green and standard objectives. Hence, a more original Armada experience!

• The effects of winning the Skywalker side story on the All-out Offensive are now not some abstract mechanisms (it used to be activation benefits), but are more thematic: The Empire gets the Executor class SSD and the Rebels get Purrgils!

• It is now only 5 rounds (used to be 6), before the All-out Offensive starts (it turned out that 5 is a sweet spot before battles become repetitive). Rebel activity stickers have been reduced accordingly.

• The optional rules reflect more the challenges of the current meta.

• There is now an option included for having the Rebellion in the Rim Fleet Commander rules instead of the regular upgrade cards.

• Lots of other small improvments.

Linke to the new thread (there you can also download the campaign):

https://www.swarmada.net/forum/general-discussion/the-skywalker-campaign-1-5-a-complete-cc-overhaul

Oh, and thanks to @Roquax for playing it and providing me with some feedback!