On 9/2/2018 at 8:49 AM, Nostromoid said:

A second follow-up: Here is the final or nearly-final version of the sector map. I definitely want any and all feedback on this, so it can be perfect in the next few days and I can get a version printed up for the playtest group. (Click to embiggen.)

A bit late but it is just awesome. The only thing I dislike is the way you put the objectives and bonus list. I really preferred this:

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

A bit late but it is just awesome. The only thing I dislike is the way you put the objectives and bonus list. I really preferred this:

I agree

Hmm... I see what you mean...

LEFT-SIDE TEXT

• With diagonally-slanted frame pieces. The appearance of those gray framework pieces is all subjective: minimalism versus pseudo-futuristic UI work. But it does have a practical advantage in that it slants the text field. If the sidebar that holds the blue and green text is rectangular as suggested, then it narrows around the middle. So, for example, if a location's bottom-most objective has a long name, it might make things a bit crowded.
• With diagonally-slanted frame pieces. It is an overall more subtle effect, so that the mostly-translucent overlay blends into the background.

LOCATION NAME TEXT

• Small-caps. The newest version of the map has small-caps text (so the first letter is capitalized and large, and the rest of each word is capitalized and small). I like that, as it's in keeping with Star Wars and FFG aesthetic.
• Framed location name. In one of the more recent iterations, I added a little holding frame for the name of each location, whereas previously, the orange-red lettering of each location's name had been freely floating over the rest of the graphic. I like the frame because I think it helps with text readability if the location name is longer and the words start to spill over other graphical bits. But if it has the opposite effect, I'll have to rethink that.
• Aurebesh. Is totally impractical and takes up precious screen space. But I won't apologize because I think it's really fun.

Okay, I hear ya, and I'm ready to go with a map that has location infoboxes like this one.

• Increased contrast on name.
• Larger and small-caps text on name.
• Planet images are bigger, so they take up more of the box space. Geonosis here is one of the only times anything "spills over" the borders.
• Increased contrast on sidebar text.

Thumbs up?

2 hours ago, Nostromoid said:

Okay, I hear ya, and I'm ready to go with a map that has location infoboxes like this one.

• Increased contrast on name.
• Larger and small-caps text on name.
• Planet images are bigger, so they take up more of the box space. Geonosis here is one of the only times anything "spills over" the borders.
• Increased contrast on sidebar text.

Thumbs up?

Thumbs up!

6 hours ago, Nostromoid said:

Okay, I hear ya, and I'm ready to go with a map that has location infoboxes like this one.

• Increased contrast on name.
• Larger and small-caps text on name.
• Planet images are bigger, so they take up more of the box space. Geonosis here is one of the only times anything "spills over" the borders.
• Increased contrast on sidebar text.

Thumbs up?

Yes absolutely, really looking forward to playing this campaign at my next big Armada meet up in August ‘19, plenty of time to finish up by then. ?

On 9/8/2018 at 10:29 PM, Nostromoid said:

Hmm... I see what you mean...

LEFT-SIDE TEXT

• With diagonally-slanted frame pieces. The appearance of those gray framework pieces is all subjective: minimalism versus pseudo-futuristic UI work. But it does have a practical advantage in that it slants the text field. If the sidebar that holds the blue and green text is rectangular as suggested, then it narrows around the middle. So, for example, if a location's bottom-most objective has a long name, it might make things a bit crowded.
• With diagonally-slanted frame pieces. It is an overall more subtle effect, so that the mostly-translucent overlay blends into the background.

LOCATION NAME TEXT

• Small-caps. The newest version of the map has small-caps text (so the first letter is capitalized and large, and the rest of each word is capitalized and small). I like that, as it's in keeping with Star Wars and FFG aesthetic.
• Framed location name. In one of the more recent iterations, I added a little holding frame for the name of each location, whereas previously, the orange-red lettering of each location's name had been freely floating over the rest of the graphic. I like the frame because I think it helps with text readability if the location name is longer and the words start to spill over other graphical bits. But if it has the opposite effect, I'll have to rethink that.
• Aurebesh. Is totally impractical and takes up precious screen space. But I won't apologize because I think it's really fun.

Hey. How’s the campaign going? How far into it are you guys?

The Playtest Concludes

My playtest group here in Burbank, CA finished up our full playtest of the Siege of the Arkanis Sector. Here's how it went down!

• The Empire won, but most victories were narrow: This outcome alone encourages me that the SotAS has been a success, as the snowball effect was dialed way, way down from the CC. In every campaign round we played, the Empire maintained its lead, winning 2-3 out of 3 battles. Still, every battle or nearly every one was decided by fewer than 100 points difference. While the Rebels never managed to catch up, battles weren't blowouts and neither team felt particularly cocky leading up to a battle.
• We played with Shipyards as a strategic effect: One of the first requested revisions to the rules was an edit to the way that refitting your fleet works. Initially, I drafted the rules so that (a) ships almost never get repaired, and (b) you have very little restriction on removing and replacing non-unique ships. My playtest group was a little intimidated by the prospect of having ships be almost impossible to unscar, and also wanted to clamp down on the freedom to rewrite fleets (see next). After making the cost (in tokens) to remove scarring from a ship or squadron, meant to be occasionally affordable for only the most important things, most players chose to keep their linchpin squadrons alive (e.g., Jan Ors). In any case, it was clear that teams considered Shipyards to be extremely important.
• Losing forces felt trivial, if not unique: Players in our test group fought tooth and nail to keep unique squadrons, etc from being permanently lost. At the same time, they often commented that it seemed to hardly matter if generic ships or squadrons were lost, because they could be simply purchased again during the Maintenance phase. I recognized that defeat should sting, but I explained my design rationale as meant to give the losing side a catchup opportunity, and that I wasn't too choked up about fleets not being kept in a stranglehold by their losses. I'm more preoccupied with the experience of the side that lost battles than I am with the side that won battles. Still, players felt that it was sometimes unthematic.
• Regency Influence is strong: I knew the third-tier effect of the Regency Influence strategic effect (stopping a scarred ship/squadron from being eliminated) would be very strong. I figured if a group went to try and hold all three Regency worlds, they would be beset on all sides trying to hold them. The Empire managed to hold off these attempts to dislodge them from Arkanis, Issor, and Vasch (especially Vasch... poor Vasch), which left them with powerful tokens to spend over and over.
• We fought over a few key locations repeatedly: A handful of map locations were targeted for assaults at nearly every opportunity during our playtest: the Regency worlds and the locations of the Shipyards, mostly. A suggestion was raised during the playtest that perhaps map locations could become ravaged by war if they were fought over repeatedly, which would eliminate the benefits of holding it. So, for example, a location that was attacked a few times could become so embattled that it loses its strategic effect, even if defended successfully. This might help (a) avoid one side from camping on the most desirable locations, and (b) discourage players from endlessly fighting over the same locations. I suppose the fact that there even is such a bias toward certain locations means that locations could use more balancing.
• Victory Rewards tables worked, but some seemed better than others: Players expressed a definite preference for certain tables, usually the ones that gave squadrons. I intended that some tables would be high-variance but with some very choice items. For example, you might get some lame ion cannons from the junkyard, but you might get a scarred flotilla. I will take a look at the balance of the lists when I'm doing my edits.
• A final version is coming: I'll be wrapping up a few to-do items next. Incorporating playtest feedback. Proofreading. Inserting some artwork and giving layout a once-over. Creating printer-friendly versions.
• Season 2 comes after that: I already have ideas for the next "season" of campaign rules. I'm plotting a bigger departure from the Corellian Conflict this time, to strike out in a different direction.

Fleet Clash: All-Out Assault

The Burbank, CA playtest group had our big finale the Saturday before last, and it was a pretty epic battle.

The Imperial and Rebel forces converged in full strength on the stretch of debris-strewn space near the Old Corellian Run hyperlane...

The Empire brought, all told, five Imperial-class star destroyers, plus a complement of support vessels and flanking ships. The Rebels brought the strength of the Mon Cal shipwrights, with three Home One-class MC80s (including Home One itself, plus Defiance), the Aspiration, the Mon Karren, an assault frigate, and a host of smaller corvettes and frigates. The Rebel fighter coverage was lighter, but they brought a network of transports to coordinate their bombing runs. The Empire brought wave after wave of TIEs, with a core of bombers and a handful of bounty hunters (the Fab Four, preach!). Finally, the Empire’s greatest weapon was revealed to be a pair of Cymoon 1 refits that were loaded ready to issue fleet commands (Entrapment Formation! and Intensify Firepower!).

Vader’s flagship, the Interdictor, repositioned some of the sector’s obstacles, and the fleets exited hyperspace ready for battle. Unlike the mass conflict at the outset of the campaign, this time all four fleet commanders fully appreciated the importance of good hyperspace reinforcement placement, so careful deliberation went into claiming the best locations into which hyperspace reinforcements could suddenly emerge. The Empire’s gunline formed up into a familiar formation, loosely converging on the center of the battle, with outlying ships burning engines to wheel into the rear of the Rebels. The Alliance, meanwhile, formed a broadside file with Home One and other MC80-class cruisers at the tip of the spear. The Aspiration guarded the flanks and the cloud of X-Wings and A-Wings hung close to protect the fleet.

Imperials had initiative for the opening round. Conflict broke out immediately in the right-most sector of the battle, where two opposing corvettes met and a Raider deployed its external missile racks to vaporize a Hammerhead. A small force of TIE Defenders pounced on the Hammerhead’s partner ship and dealt minimal damage. The Rebels threw A-Wings to block these Defenders, and they fought a fighter battle around the station and in the nearby asteroid fields.

In the second round, the two fleets were clearly on a collision course that would meet at any moment. Star destroyers converged and threatened the onrushing Mon Cal cruisers with combined turbolaser fire, but still mostly only at the most extreme ranges. The Rebel fleet passed on the far side of a dust field, which blocked weapons from both directions and delayed a second front from opening on the Rebels’ left flank. Fighters continued to hold back on both sides, though skirmishes began to break out in sections across the battlefield.

At the start of the third (and most decisive) round, both factions called in nearly every reserve ship. The Empire was forced to leave one of its star destroyers out still, in order to properly position its hyperspace beacon. Avenger emerged at the very front of the Rebel fleet, ready to launch Boarding Troopers and gut the first cruiser to close range. The Rebels responded by placing Mon Karren directly behind Avenger, and an assault frigate and CR90 to entrap Demolisher in the rear before beginning to lay into the heavier Imperial ships. With initiative back in Imperial hands, Demolisher opened the round by obliterating the corvette that blocked its path and accelerating into a turn to hide among the Imperial-classes. Demolisher's engine block was lit up by Mon Karren's turbolaser volley from behind, and it exploded. Avenger responded by completing its lethal attack sequence against the lead Rebel cruiser (which I believe was Defiance) and closing the trap around the Rebel convoy. Next, the Rebels returned fire and nearly destroyed the lead ISD-II. However, with their fighter swarm depleting rapidly and a final ISD joining the battle to the rear, the outcome was becoming clear.

Did we finish the All-Out Assault? No. But we did have a great time and spend about four hours rolling dice in the most epic half-game of Armada I've ever played. The terms of the battle played into the Empire's favor, but the group has already said they're ready for Season 2. Now all I have to do is write that.

3 hours ago, Nostromoid said:

The Imperial and Rebel forces converged in full strength on the stretch of debris-strewn space near the Old Corellian Run hyperlane...

Please tell me you are going to incorporate a rule for destroyed ships adding to a planet's number of debris fields.

By the way, if anyone is curious here are the final fleet lists for the playtest group.

That gorgeous MC75 paint job though...