I like the idea of having different victory conditions depending on the final tournament score. As an example, I have thought that to control a planet you need to adjust its "loyalty" to your side. If all planets start at 0 points, and you gain a number of points equal to the difference of the final score (in an 8-3 win, you would gain 5 points). Once you have 10 points you gain control of the system. You would only gain "loyalty" points if you are attacking the system or have a round in which the system is not attacked. You can lose points when defending the system. Once you have control of the system, you gain the economy bonus and any special bonuses as well.

Love most of your ideas guys. I am looking into creating my own campaign with borrowed mechanics from CC, Rebellion, Empire at war etc.

Would really like a Galaxy map where you only can move from on planet to the next ones close to it or something like that, rather than that you can move around and attack any planet.

In this case you can have a "front" where you have more defense etc.

CC is a poor campaign design for the same reason every campaign system designed in the 40 years I've been war gaming has failed and that is, in order of importance:

• Downward spiral. Loss of player strength from session to session is poor design. It' causes snowball success, and more importantly it discourages losing players from continuing.
• Fixed set of players required throughout. Requiring a fixed set of players to play every campaign turn iteration is a recipe for failure. Someone will drop, can't play, or stops playing the game.
• Bookkeeping. Any bookkeeping between sessions that is more than tracking some scores for players or sides is poor design. It.Just.Doesn't.Work. Sorry, no system has ever worked and CC also fails at this. Something always goes wrong, be it players not knowing WTH they are doing and not being able to track simple the session-to-session states, someone losing their progress, the campaign manager losing interest, folks screwing up their tracked items, to someone cheating. One or more of this is very likely to happen, some multiple times.

Honestly, they made all of the major mistakes that nearly every campaign system has made in the past 40 years. Not good.

49 minutes ago, Thraug said:

CC is a poor campaign design for the same reason every campaign system designed in the 40 years I've been war gaming has failed and that is, in order of importance:

• Downward spiral. Loss of player strength from session to session is poor design. It' causes snowball success, and more importantly it discourages losing players from continuing.
• Fixed set of players required throughout. Requiring a fixed set of players to play every campaign turn iteration is a recipe for failure. Someone will drop, can't play, or stops playing the game.
• Bookkeeping. Any bookkeeping between sessions that is more than tracking some scores for players or sides is poor design. It.Just.Doesn't.Work. Sorry, no system has ever worked and CC also fails at this. Something always goes wrong, be it players not knowing WTH they are doing and not being able to track simple the session-to-session states, someone losing their progress, the campaign manager losing interest, folks screwing up their tracked items, to someone cheating. One or more of this is very likely to happen, some multiple times.

Honestly, they made all of the major mistakes that nearly every campaign system has made in the past 40 years. Not good.

Can you give us examples of these things done well? How have better campaign systems been handled?

Sorry, double post.

We have also encountered issues with the campaign and are trying to solve them by applying a new set of rules we posted in:

If you have some time and want to read or modify or apply them please comment. We are using them in a Campaign we just started and think this can improve the experience as we mention in the post.

Good luck!!