So I had typed up this long analysis as part of a sub-discussion in the thread about Corellian Conflict Admirals, and I realized it was getting too off topic. But I felt it was stuff worth sharing/discussing, so I just moved it to its own topic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Sums up exactly how I feel about CC.

Yea, the CC is such a great idea, and it's put butts at the gaming tables at the local gaming shop many times now, which has been enjoyable, and it's exactly the sort of gaming experience Armada players want -- casual games of Armada that have some stakes. The problem is, and I think every group I've run a CC with has eventually felt this way -- the campaign suffers in a few areas, especially regarding balance.

In my opinion, and I'm basing this off of five Corellian Conflicts with players that have included a couple Store Champions, a Regional Champion, and a National Champion, the main problems with the CC are as follows:

The CC experience feels like it was 65% of the way to being an awesome product. It's got a great foundation, but feels like it was packaged up before it was refined, balanced, or finished. The map is beautiful, but is largely pointless. The fleet-building rule of one-upgrade-per-ship is head-scratching and moot by Round 2 anyways. Bases are nearly impossible to assault in all but the most lop-sided of battles, given how powerful the Planetary Ion Cannon defense is (and there's no reason to take the other base defense objectives). The "economic" objectives are horribly lop-sided, with the Imperial's Show of Force basically being free money for the Imps and the Rebel's Hyperlane Raid also basically being free money... for the Imps (even if the Imps play it in "good spirits" and don't just sit with their engines off in their own far corner). The Strategic Effects granted from planets are not even close to equal value, with Repair Yards and SpyNets being incredibly valuable while Diplomats and Spacers are in practice basically useless -- but this is odd since the economic value of planets isn't scaled inversely to reflect the value of the strategic effects. Large ships are more immune to scarring, since they are harder to outright kill and can more easily use the evacuation rules to avoid getting scarred (and even if they do get scarred, since you don't pay to unscar upgrades ships with tons of upgrades are proportionally much cheaper to unscar than say a swarm of Hammerheads with just External Racks). Economic gains tend to happen incredibly quickly, and in two of our CCs Imperials had maxed out 500pt fleets by Round 3. There is a real snowball effect where once one side starts to run away with it the writing is on the wall... for a long time as the winning faction plays punching bag with the losing faction in that slow crawl to victory.


But the biggest issue, probably, is that the most strategically sound way to play the CC is often the least fun way to actually play Armada, since it encourages a lack of engagement. Since there's no tournament scoring, a 6-5 win is as good as a 10-1 win in the CC, so one player is almost always innately encouraged to turtle up in some obscene defensive position or to avoid combat to secure the win . And this is super boring for both players, and feels a bit against the spirit of a game that's supposed to be about fleets destroying each other. Similarly, even in a 6-Player campaign, you end up with a lot of rematches by the end, especially if the teams involved want to continually pit one of their own fleets, Fleet A, against the same opposing Fleet B because Fleet A has a big innate match-up advantage against Fleet B. This means Player A and Player B are always pairing up as Fleet A just wails on Fleet B -- that's not fun for anybody involved. So it's on the players to make decisions that are less strategically sound to try and ensure that Player A and Player B have a better time.



NEVERTHELESS, I still overall love the CC, and it beats playing stake-less casual games of Armada. I would still love to see FFG put out another campaign pack, one that refines these biggest issues from the CC. Frankly, FFG should have thrown a new and improved campgain pack about midway through last year, since something like that would energize the community and give them so many new opportunities to play and enjoy the game, even in a long drought of no attention and no new ships. Heck, even a print-and-play series of scenarios or new objectives to try. But we're clearly into pie-in-the-sky sorts of dreams at this point...

Thanks for that well thought out and informative article. While I've only had the chance to play CC against myself in a sort of demo experience, I can agree with all your points.

50 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Yea, the CC is such a great idea, and it's put butts at the gaming tables at the local gaming shop many times now, which has been enjoyable, and it's exactly the sort of gaming experience Armada players want -- casual games of Armada that have some stakes.

This, this this! I love Armada and don't get to play nearly enough. However every time I do play, it's kind of like playing poker with no real money wagered. It's a fun time, and you get some bragging rights among your friends, but that's where it ends. I've created a spreadsheet that allows Rebellion players to use Armada to resolve battles. Even though most of the battles are lopsided toward one side or the other (like CC), many battles have a specific objective (usually for the rebels) that can still be accomplished even when losing the battle. It really adds to the stakes that each Armada battle has. If anyone wants a link I'd be happy to share, but I don't want to derail this thread.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

NEVERTHELESS, I still overall love the CC, and it beats playing stake-less casual games of Armada. I would still love to see FFG put out another campaign pack, one that refines these biggest issues from the CC. Frankly, FFG should have thrown a new and improved campgain pack about midway through last year, since something like that would energize the community and give them so many new opportunities to play and enjoy the game, even in a long drought of no attention and no new ships. Heck, even a print-and-play series of scenarios or new objectives to try. But we're clearly into pie-in-the-sky sorts of dreams at this point...

I'm going to hold out hope that a new campaign is in the works that incorporates the new SSD. But something that still has value for the masses that don't/can't purchase the SSD. Provide some better support titles for the imperials (eg. Hand of Justice, Sovereign) to assist large/huge ships. And some better defensive titles for the rebel large ships (eg. Foresight, Admonition) to better survive attacks from large/huge ships. Make the campaign a branching one that has different missions/options depending on the outcome of the previous mission(s).

4 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So I had typed up this long analysis as part of a sub-discussion in the thread about Corellian Conflict Admirals, and I realized it was getting too off topic. But I felt it was stuff worth sharing/discussing, so I just moved it to its own topic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yea, the CC is such a great idea, and it's put butts at the gaming tables at the local gaming shop many times now, which has been enjoyable, and it's exactly the sort of gaming experience Armada players want -- casual games of Armada that have some stakes. The problem is, and I think every group I've run a CC with has eventually felt this way -- the campaign suffers in a few areas, especially regarding balance.

In my opinion, and I'm basing this off of five Corellian Conflicts with players that have included a couple Store Champions, a Regional Champion, and a National Champion, the main problems with the CC are as follows:

The CC experience feels like it was 65% of the way to being an awesome product. It's got a great foundation, but feels like it was packaged up before it was refined, balanced, or finished. The map is beautiful, but is largely pointless. The fleet-building rule of one-upgrade-per-ship is head-scratching and moot by Round 2 anyways. Bases are nearly impossible to assault in all but the most lop-sided of battles, given how powerful the Planetary Ion Cannon defense is (and there's no reason to take the other base defense objectives). The "economic" objectives are horribly lop-sided, with the Imperial's Show of Force basically being free money for the Imps and the Rebel's Hyperlane Raid also basically being free money... for the Imps (even if the Imps play it in "good spirits" and don't just sit with their engines off in their own far corner). The Strategic Effects granted from planets are not even close to equal value, with Repair Yards and SpyNets being incredibly valuable while Diplomats and Spacers are in practice basically useless -- but this is odd since the economic value of planets isn't scaled inversely to reflect the value of the strategic effects. Large ships are more immune to scarring, since they are harder to outright kill and can more easily use the evacuation rules to avoid getting scarred (and even if they do get scarred, since you don't pay to unscar upgrades ships with tons of upgrades are proportionally much cheaper to unscar than say a swarm of Hammerheads with just External Racks). Economic gains tend to happen incredibly quickly, and in two of our CCs Imperials had maxed out 500pt fleets by Round 3. There is a real snowball effect where once one side starts to run away with it the writing is on the wall... for a long time as the winning faction plays punching bag with the losing faction in that slow crawl to victory.


But the biggest issue, probably, is that the most strategically sound way to play the CC is often the least fun way to actually play Armada, since it encourages a lack of engagement. Since there's no tournament scoring, a 6-5 win is as good as a 10-1 win in the CC, so one player is almost always innately encouraged to turtle up in some obscene defensive position or to avoid combat to secure the win . And this is super boring for both players, and feels a bit against the spirit of a game that's supposed to be about fleets destroying each other. Similarly, even in a 6-Player campaign, you end up with a lot of rematches by the end, especially if the teams involved want to continually pit one of their own fleets, Fleet A, against the same opposing Fleet B because Fleet A has a big innate match-up advantage against Fleet B. This means Player A and Player B are always pairing up as Fleet A just wails on Fleet B -- that's not fun for anybody involved. So it's on the players to make decisions that are less strategically sound to try and ensure that Player A and Player B have a better time.



NEVERTHELESS, I still overall love the CC, and it beats playing stake-less casual games of Armada. I would still love to see FFG put out another campaign pack, one that refines these biggest issues from the CC. Frankly, FFG should have thrown a new and improved campgain pack about midway through last year, since something like that would energize the community and give them so many new opportunities to play and enjoy the game, even in a long drought of no attention and no new ships. Heck, even a print-and-play series of scenarios or new objectives to try. But we're clearly into pie-in-the-sky sorts of dreams at this point...

So along with only one upgrade per ship only for the first game and now knowing you can put more on after that. Im assuming you can also add ships to your fleet as well or is it just upgrades being applied to the ones you have?

2 minutes ago, XR8rGREAT said:

So along with only one upgrade per ship only for the first game and now knowing you can put more on after that. Im assuming you can also add ships to your fleet as well or is it just upgrades being applied to the ones you have?

You can add anything you want with the extra points.

4 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

You can add anything you want with the extra points.

Correct, but adding squadrons must always obey the 34% limit.

So if you have a 400pt fleet with 132pts of fighters and you have 60 points to add to it, you cannot add 60 points of fighters (since 194pts > 34% of 460). But you can add 40 points of ship-stuff and 20 points of fighters, since 152pts is 34% of 460.

We played that you can only add fighters if the fleet obeyed the fighter cap after the fighters were added. But you didn't have to remove fighters if, due to ship loss, your remaining fighters were now more of the fleet than the allowed cap.

Also worth noting: Players on a Team cannot share money. Players have their own separate income as it is divided up and this cannot be pooled or transferred. While this seems a bit unthematic, I assume it's a balancing mechanism so that teams can't filter their funds to the player that needs it most, as this would skew the growth metric. Players also cannot give ships, squadrons, or upgrades to team members' fleets.



Finally, I believe the official rules say that unequipped and unused upgrades still count toward the Fleet Total, which would affect squadron %s and prevents those points from later being spent once the 500pt cap is reached. We just played that upgrades that were not attached to your fleet did not count toward your fleet value and could be kept "in storage" and later equipped/swapped with other upgrades in your fleet if desired. Players just needed to clearly indicate their Fleet List after a Round, before the next Round's pairings are taking place (ie, a Player can't swap around all of his upgrades once she knows who her scheduled opponent is).

What about this idea:

You must spend resource points to purchase base defense objectives, and assign them to your bases. Extra squadrons (can’t recall the exact name) costs 10 resource points, Armed Station is 20, Ion Cannon is 40. Both sides get 60 points worth of base defenses for free at the start.

This helps to balance the defensive objectives because the “worse” ones are cheaper. Also, the side that’s winning needs to spend more resources defending their territory.

Considerations: can you upgrade from one defense to another, and how does that work? Or can you buy more than one type for a location? (!)

I’d be tempted to say that Ion Cannons stick to the location even if it changes hands, unless you pay 10 RP when you lose the location to demolish the cannon on your way out.

Another idea or two, to mix battles up:

Don’t announce which fleets are being used in an attack, so that Players A and B aren’t always matches up because B’s fleet is a good counter to A.

When a battle is over a neutral location, instead of using the defender’s objectives, draw one of each type at random to pick from. (Should the defending player pick the objective in this case?)

9 hours ago, Tayloraj100 said:

What about this idea:

You must spend resource points to purchase base defense objectives, and assign them to your bases. Extra squadrons (can’t recall the exact name) costs 10 resource points, Armed Station is 20, Ion Cannon is 40. Both sides get 60 points worth of base defenses for free at the start.

This helps to balance the defensive objectives because the “worse” ones are cheaper. Also, the side that’s winning needs to spend more resources defending their territory.

Considerations: can you upgrade from one defense to another, and how does that work? Or can you buy more than one type for a location? (!)

I’d be tempted to say that Ion Cannons stick to the location even if it changes hands, unless you pay 10 RP when you lose the location to demolish the cannon on your way out.

In the last (of three) attempts to play the campaign, we skipped Base Defense Objectives (and Special Assaults). We gave every planet a value, named "Control" from 1-3. To claim a planet for victory or to benefit from its Strategic Effect players had to leave a garrison with Command Value according to Control Value of the planet. (Flotillas don't count!) Repair Yards were all "Control 3" so you had to garrison at least a Victory I or AF II (or about 70 FP) to get Repair Points. If you defend a planet you may add the garrison to your fleet even if it exceeds 500 FP limit. Every side startet only with 1 planet.

Because it was too expensive to hold a CV 3 planet in the first few rounds, both sides fought over planets with a lower CV but giving good Resources or other Strategic Effects. Our campaign was not really balanced, Imperials won 5 of 6 matches tabling the opposing fleets 3 times. But the winning team struggled very hard to pay for all the garrisons, so fighting fleets weren't so far away in points.

Another idea which worked great: We changed the effect for Diplomats. We made it work as a shut down for another Strategic Effect. But it can't shut down the same planet twice in a row. (And Diplomats can shut down other Diplomats, what's very ... diplomatic!)

And make it easier for a team to exchange cards, squadrons or ships. We had no trade restriction but one: After trading the point gap between two fleets cannot be bigger than before. That only to avoid, that one side builds a super fleet.

When I played CC, I agree that Show of Force was super powerful for Imperials, and Hyperlane Raid was a terrible objective for Rebels. But our Imperial player who did the Show of Force the first two times got wrecked, then I did Show of Force three times, mainly to allow his fleet to recover and get up to 500. Meanwhile, the Rebels took Corellia pretty early and we swapped it back and forth once, then the Rebels held onto it. And they got more resource points than we did from bases, due to the base/outpost advantage.

Rebels were way ahead of us in campaign points in the end and definitely could have won the whole thing by campaign points alone, but decided to play the AOO just because it's more epic. By that point, the fleets (one Rebel, one Imperial) that had been struggling to build themselves up in points had finally been able to get close to 500, and we had a very close match in the final battle. The Rebels won by about 150 points.

Not sure what the moral of the story is though. I'm not super strongly opinionated, but I like that some of you have come up with ideas to make the campaign better.

One thing that annoyed me is that the three objectives I chose for my fleet only got played in my first game. After that I played one base defense objective, I played Show of Force three times (and even though it was necessary for our team, this felt pretty tedious by the third game).

19 hours ago, Tayloraj100 said:

When a battle is over a neutral location, instead of using the defender’s objectives, draw one of each type at random to pick from. (Should the defending player pick the objective in this case?)

3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

One thing that annoyed me is that the three objectives I chose for my fleet only got played in my first game. After that I played one base defense objective, I played Show of Force three times (and even though it was necessary for our team, this felt pretty tedious by the third game).

@Tayloraj100 -- I kind of love the idea of random drawing one type of each objective for neutral locations. Given that there is no need to "bid" in the CC and that 1st/2nd is determined by Attacker and Defender, I like the added unpredictability of three random objectives. It would certainly help prevent some of the staleness @Bertie Wooster notes, since objectives in CC Fleets are usually just objectives also popular in Tournaments. While using 'standard' objectives is probably a bit too rare in the CC, at least playing from randomly drawn ones would add a little spice and unpredictability, allowing players to try new less-played objectives while also keeping the repetitive rematches between two fleets feeling so stale.

@Bertie Wooster -- Your critique still stands, though, that the economic objectives are too tedious, especially when it's not uncommon for 1 or 2 of the 3 battles of the week (in a 6-Player Campaign) to be economic objective missions, which means at most only a single Campaign Point will be gained that week. This really makes the campaign drag, especially since money is usually pretty moot for the leading faction after a couple rounds. There would, perhaps, be a few possible solutions to this issue:
(1) Eliminate the Special Economic Objectives : honesty, in my opinion fleets grow way too fast anyways in the CC, such that the faction "in power" has typically maxed out their fleets pretty early, thus rendering the economic game for them pointless while giving them nothing else to build toward. Just removing the economic objectives would slow fleet growth a bit while keeping battles from getting so stale. This also would avoid the inherent imbalance between Show of Force and Hyperlane Raid, which I do not think is intentional design but rather poor execution.
(2) Limit the Special Objectives to Once/Campaign : in this variant, you would "discard" the objective after your faction attempted it. Each side could still try to gain some funds from these objectives, but only once per campaign. Still leaves the drastic imbalance between SoF and HR.
(3) Only the Trailing Faction may Launch Special Objective: in this variant, only the faction that was losing could decide to launch their economic objective. The idea would be to still allow the trailing side to seek out extra money, but it still leaves the huge issue of the trailing faction launching an economic objective each round with their weakest fleet just to deny the more dominant opponents a campaign point.
(4) Create a Set of Special Objectives for Each Faction : this would require a lot of home-brewed leg work, but if properly executed would avoid the current imbalance in special objectives and would limit how stale doing Show of Force every week can become.




One house rule that we have used in later campaigns was that the fleet that wins their opponent's special economic objective could opt to have their team forgo all of the money gained and instead take a campaign point . This at least prevents the losing faction from using the special objectives a "victory point stall" tactic. This change was very well received, but I think I'd like to still probably just drop them from the game entirely. Show of Force is really straightforward and easy (as long as the Imperial player has brought a gunship with Gunnery Team... or two) and it denies the defender any advantage they would normally get from an objective. Hyperlane Raid is just all sorts of broken, and my sense is that no one in our groups has had fun in those games, even when the Imp wasn't just being super gamey and parking in their far corner.

Other changes we have employed:


Diplomats: Diplomat tokens may protect occupied locations. This, in theory, lets a faction protect their most valuable bases with diplomats (at least until the diplomat system itself is taken), but that did not turn out to be problematic. In fact, diplomats still felt entirely underwhelming given the size of the map and the number of locations in play on a Round. I'd still like to see something else for diplomats, especially given they are such a rare resource that comes from planets with so little economic value. I think next time I'd like to try, in addition to their above effect, something like "If a team controls 1/2/3 systems with Diplomats, then each player on the team gains 3/6/9 credits each round that can only be spent on purchasing [Officers], [Support Teams], and [Gunnery Teams] upgrades, and these special credits are lost at the end of the round if not spent. This would make them sort of like a Repair Yard for Personnel, which would help capture the ways in which diplomats could serve as effective recruiters or influencers who help cultivate a positive image for their faction's cause, making people more willing to join up.


Skilled Spacers : Instead of their normal (read: useless) function, Skilled Spacer tokens are distributed amongst a team's fleets before battles (just like Spynet Tokens). Then, before setup, the Player can assign any Skilled Spacer tokens to generic squadrons, with a maximum of one token per squadron. Once per battle, a Skilled Spacer token can be spent (discard it) to allow the squadron to reroll one or more of its dice. This basically made it a like a "single use" veteran token for generic squadrons. The idea was skilled pilots from the Skilled Spacers' worlds were showing up with some snubfighters and freighters to help support your own squadrons (or, in the case of Imperials, may represent conscripted pilots, mercenaries, or bounty hunters who have been hired or coerced into service). The limit to generic squadrons only was so you couldn't have a Veteran Squadron that also had a Skilled Spacer token, and it's probably not likely Lord Vader is gonna let some local muscle fly his wing... This made Skilled Spacer tokens far more useful and fun, without letting them be too powerful since they tend to come from credit-rich systems already. [At one point, I dreamed about letting each Skilled Spacer token add a temporary generic YT-1300 or YV-666 to its player's fleet that disappeared after the battle and had the special trait Independent Ally (This squadron cannot be activated by Squadron Commands), but I was worried this would be too good and that I wouldn't have enough spare models to cover the group. Alternatively, I think it'd be really thematic if each Skilled Spacer token could be spent to add a generic Z-95 squadron with Independent Ally to the fleet (even an Imperial Fleet). Helpful Space Pirates for the win!]



SpyNets and Repair Yards are both still super valuable worlds, and even with these two changes above are still likely much better picks than Diplomats or Spacers, but at least Diplomats and Spacers aren't quite so worthless.






With regards to Base Defense objectives, we just limited Planetary Ion Cannon so that the tokens were discarded when used (giving it less overall shots, and not letting it multi-fire from the same token). It was still probably the most powerful Base Defense objective, but at least it wasn't so gonzo ... I've still only seen bases fall during the campaign when there's been an egregious discrepancy in skill or fleet (e.g. a Regional Champion vs a newbie, or a 500pt attack vs a 380pt defender).

I sort of wish something more akin to Rebellion's hidden base could somehow be implemented into an Armada campaign. Something where the Imperials have incentive to probe or attack Rebel presence (maybe SpyNets could help with this), and once the base is found there's like a special evacuation objective and all the fleets are involved (sort of like the All Out Assault)? Would take a lot of reworking, but would likely feel a bit more tense and thematic.

So we ran a few house rules when we ran the campaign a second time.

Our first was that, after Round 1 the Resource mission could only be launched by the side that was behind on campaign points.

Similarly to above, we said that unused upgrades could be sold back at 50% of initial costs, allowing some fleets to help recover some points.

We let players upgrade standard squads to aces by paying the points difference (assuming those aces weren't already dead/in use in another fleet).

We also added that the skilled spacer token could make a ship a 'veteran' for a game if it wasn't used to change objectives. That meant that some others ships could get the benefit.

51 minutes ago, Crewgar said:

We also added that the skilled spacer token could make a ship a 'veteran' for a game if it wasn't used to change objectives. That meant that some others ships could get the benefit.

This is a great house rule, I'm definitely going to adopt it.

8 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

@Tayloraj100 -- I kind of love the idea of random drawing one type of each objective for neutral locations. Given that there is no need to "bid" in the CC and that 1st/2nd is determined by Attacker and Defender, I like the added unpredictability of three random objectives. It would certainly help prevent some of the staleness @Bertie Wooster notes, since objectives in CC Fleets are usually just objectives also popular in Tournaments. While using 'standard' objectives is probably a bit too rare in the CC, at least playing from randomly drawn ones would add a little spice and unpredictability, allowing players to try new less-played objectives while also keeping the repetitive rematches between two fleets feeling so stale.

Random objectives at neutral locations could also make Skilled Spacers more useful!

Some nice contributions to this thus far.


Here's the core of it, I think:
Strategic campaign games encourage players to arrange the most asymmetrical engagements that they can (lopsided battles they are favored to win), knowing when to cut their losses. But games like Armada are very little fun when they are asymmetrical (lopsided) or someone is just playing to minimize their losses.

Very well said, I have found this to be 100% true Mr. Allwings

In a recent campaign I was in, to prevent one side from getting a lopsided advantage, we ruled that you had to pay 3 RPs for 2 points of upgrades (but repairs and unscarring were normal) during the first two rounds.

Honestly, it still led to the winning sides' fleets powering up too fast. Maybe 2 RPs for each 1 point of upgrade to the fleet would work better.

6 hours ago, TTC said:

Honestly, it still led to the winning sides' fleets powering up too fast.

Yea, that's the basic rub. A campaign-style game has incentives to favor the winning-side, ie to reward them for wins. But a battle of Armada is typically only fun (at least for both players) if it is relatively balanced and even.

Were there to ever be another campaign system, I think it would have to have differing objective goals for Imperials and Rebels. That way, there could be a better built-in parity to the games, even if the battles themselves were lopsided. This might be closer to something like Rebellion , where the Rebels aren't really expected to challenge the Empire on military grounds, and cannot hope to secure a full-on warfare victory. Nevertheless, Rebels can still win the game since several of the missions are not military-based and since the Rebels have other primary goals (e.g. keep the base hidden, relocate it if it falls under pressure, keep the Rebellion alive).

While this is an extreme example of that principle: flying a single CR90 through enemy-held space in order to try and pull off some risky objective is the sort of thing that happens all the time in Star Wars, as that classic underdog narrative goes, but at least in Armada with its current objectives and mechanics games involving a single CR90 vs an Imperial Fleet just cannot be made fun or interesting and will always be a waste of time setting-up and breaking-down. Maybe there exist some better middleground where a tolerable level of disparity between fleets at the table still allows for engaging and rewarding games of Armada that are campaign-meaningful.

I think the basic set up of a campaign should be that winning sides don't get anything but Victory Points that contribute to the overall win, but losing sides get the means to come back to the fight.

When you want to play with something as lopsided as a single CR-90 against a fleet, then you need to introduce house rules. Play on a 30'x15' mat so there's room to maneuver/run away. If the CR-90 is between 2 ships, then die that aren't used (blanks, evaded die) inflict damage on another ship in range within that firing arc. Limit the number of squadrons and/or take away rogue. Give the CR-90 some extra hull and upgrade slots, esp another defensive retrofit and support team.

All together, that might be a bit much, but it depends on the makeup of the imperial fleet. But some combination of that probably results in something really fun.

I can see lots of ways to come up with a homebrew campaign that is well-suited to a particular gaming group that might not work more broadly (“Hey, what if we could only have X number of points’ worth of stuff per player but could break that up into multiple fleets?”) but I keep trying to figure out something simple that will better serve CC for most folks and/or point the way towards a better second campaign.

I like the idea of asymmetry but would prefer to keep it pretty close to regular Armada (as much as CC does). Maybe the Empire starts with several bases (and a bigger economy) but the starting fleets are smaller. The Rebellion might only get one base and several outposts but start with a larger fleet to represent the Rebels trying to concentrate force in a sector where the Empire is weak. That might be tricky to balance but the ideal would be that the Rebel players have to knock the Empire down right off the bat or they will quickly get fleets too big to handle, whereas the Empire wants to avoid losing planets but must hold out against larger fleets.

Edit: Ooh, how about this, too. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Rebellion starts out with 400-point fleets and the Empire starts with 300-point fleets. Once per campaign, each Grand Admiral can call for reinforcements if their side is losing (or perhaps losing by a certain amount). Calling on reinforcements maybe should also reduce that side's total Victory Points by 1 (minimum 0). During that turn, if a Grand Admiral has called for reinforcements, anyone on that side who retires their fleet can get a replacement fleet using more points than normal. The Empire can call for reinforcements starting at Campaign Turn 2, and gets more points the later in the game it is (350 at Turn 2, 400 at Turn 3, 450 at Turn 4, 500 at turn 5 or later). If an Imperial player retires a fleet, he or she normally gets 300 points for a replacement fleet until Turn 4, whereupon it becomes 400 points. The Rebellion normally gets 400 points for a new fleet when one is retired, and may call upon reinforcements starting at Turn 4. On the turn they call for reinforcements, the Rebellion gets 500-point replacement fleets, 450-point fleets on the turn after that, 400-point fleets on the following turn, and then only get 300-point replacement fleets for the rest of the game. (Or... instead of replacement fleets, the Rebellion gets [100 x number of Rebel players] resource points when they call for reinforcements?)

Something like that.

Another idea that might not be exactly asymmetrical but would throw in some variety: I'd suggested random objectives earlier, but what if instead once you'd won one of your three objectives, you had to replace it with a different one? (Even as first player; if you have a fleet with Most Wanted, once you'd won a game with Most Wanted as the objective, you have to take it out of your list.) If you ran through all the objectives of one color, maybe you could begin to reuse them, but it might be better (more balancing) to say that you had to retire that fleet.

This would make Skilled Spacers -- or whatever the heck one lets you change out objectives -- more interesting. If you think you're going to lose, switch to an objective that you'd like that fleet never to get to use as second player. (Or, if you think you've got the advantage against weaker fleet, maybe pick a sub-optimal objective so you can save the more optimal ones for a matchup where you'll really want them.)

The idea here is that if one team gets a big lead, they'll either end up having to use objectives when they're on the defensive that their fleets are not as well suited for, or they'll just need to retire those fleets and go back to 400-point ones (which maybe they'll build back up quickly, but it gives the other side a second to catch up).

I dunno. I think that winning needs to be good and gaining more planets should improve things for your team... but I think we're all looking for some mechanism that either begins to slow down a team that's pulling ahead or gives a team that's falling behind the chance to make a dramatic turnaround (in a campaign that's not radically asymmetrical).

Another option to allow lopsided matches might be some kind of score multiplier for the smaller fleet.

For example, if you were half the fleet points of the enemy, your total score at the end is doubled.

Small fleet Final Score = score * (large fleet/small fleet)

Basic fix to economic runaway and 6-5 being same as 10-1 wins.

1) All players can rebuild up to their faction’s current max every game

) Each match, tally the score. Add those scores to each players’ faction’s max. So a 8-3 win for Imps moves the fleet maxes to 408 for Imps and 403 for Rebels.

3) No scarring. If a unique dies then it dies. Admirals can suffer the same or not. Your group’s choice.

4) I hadn’t worked out how this affects objectives. Probably something like: Defending player gets whatever objectives defined by the system they are defending, plus their choice of their own three to get the total choices for the attacking player up to 3.

5) Pick a planet each side has on turn 1. That planet gets the Planetary Ion Cannon objective. No other planet ever uses it.