Jump to content

dmborque

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Jarval in App sucks.   
    Doing  a bit of self-advertising here...
    If you are looking for an offline app (Android) and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store)
  2. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from DarkHorse in App sucks.   
    Doing  a bit of self-advertising here...
    If you are looking for an offline app (Android) and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store)
  3. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Stoneface in So, which builder are YOU using?   
    Doing  a bit of self-advertising here...
    If you are looking for an offline app and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store)
    I really expected the official app to be a sum of the better parts of the fan-made apps, but for me it has been a great disapointment.
  4. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Elbastido in So, which builder are YOU using?   
    Doing  a bit of self-advertising here...
    If you are looking for an offline app and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store)
    I really expected the official app to be a sum of the better parts of the fan-made apps, but for me it has been a great disapointment.
  5. Thanks
    dmborque got a reaction from Jedirev in So, which builder are YOU using?   
    Doing  a bit of self-advertising here...
    If you are looking for an offline app and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store)
    I really expected the official app to be a sum of the better parts of the fan-made apps, but for me it has been a great disapointment.
  6. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Damo1701 in So, which builder are YOU using?   
    Doing  a bit of self-advertising here...
    If you are looking for an offline app and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store)
    I really expected the official app to be a sum of the better parts of the fan-made apps, but for me it has been a great disapointment.
  7. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Maui. in PLEASE Update the Squad Builders   
    Hi, I'm the developer of this app, which I think is up to date.
    The issue you are experiencing probably has to do with your Android version and permissions given to the app. I'd recommend downloading the latest version and installing it over the old one (don't uninstall, and you will not lose your squads). I'd you have further problems, you can contact me through the g+ community.
    Download the apk from the g+ community (link in the app) or from swx.mygamesonline.org
     
  8. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Cusm in Disapointed with CC   
    I think you got something there. Maybe each systems should have a track of how firm is the control of the controlling side, and after the battle, depending on the victory margin, reduce the control on the planet or gain control over it (e.g. Corellia is +9 to the Empire, so only a 10-1 victory of the Rebellion in that system removes control of the Empire over it. A minor rebel victory 7-4 would reduce control to +6) ....something along these lines.
    Control could be increased over time, or through resources investment...
    This could be quite thematic: you need a major victory if you want to remove (imperial) control from one system. Minor victories would help undermine this control. Maybe imperial control could be tracked in this way and devise another way to track the influence of the Rebellion over the systems...
  9. Like
    dmborque reacted to MattShadowlord in One Simple Anti-Snowball Rule for the Corellian Campaign   
    We just finished a Corellian Campaign here in Perth, Australia. It was great fun, but we hit the same problem many people have reported, which is that the rules reward success to the degree that the winning team can quickly leap ahead of their opponents, making future wins easier,  and creating a snowball effect.
    Rewarding success makes a sense, but all players were of the opinion that individual games are more fun when more evenly matched.
    The simple anti-snowball rules below are designed to narrow the gap somewhat while still leaving the advantage with the player who has earned more points.
     The points difference between the players fleets is awarded to the disadvantaged player as temporary recruitment points. They may spend these points with the following restrictions:
    If they can afford a capital ship(s) with these points, they must buy the ship(s) before any squadrons*. Flotillas do not count for this rule** No title or upgrades may be purchased for this Capital Ship*** Any remaining points can be spent on non-unique Squadrons The Capital Ships and Squadrons do not count as friendly to the fleet**** All ships and squadrons bought with Temporary recruitment points count towards the game score, but are then permanently removed after the tally has been made.  
    *the reason players must buy capital ships if they can is to reduce the risk of an unusually amount of fleet of squadrons actually benefiting the disadvantaged player. In practice this means a Rebel will never be able to spend more than 38 temporary points of Squadrons (if they had 39 remaining they would need to buy a Corvette-B) and an Imperial will never be able to spend more than 43 temporary points on Squadrons (if they had 44, they would be required to buy a Raider-I).
    **buy one if you wish, but these rules are not intended to actively encourage more flotillas.
    ***the rule is intended to narrow the gap, not allow TRC Corvettes or OE Flak Raiders. It should always be better to buy ships using real resource points.
    ****this means that the freebooters do not benefit from Admiral's abilities or similar rules that affect friendly ships, to ensure that properly purchased ships and squadrons are superior.
     
    ----------------------
    For example:
    Charlie has an Imperial fleet of 460 points. Samantha a Rebel fleet of 410 points. The gap between the fleet sizes is 50 points, so Samantha may spend 50 temporary points. She can afford a capital ship so must buy one first (she chooses a Corvette-B for 39). She then has 11 points left, so buys an A-wing. Both fleets are now 460 points, although Charlie's carefully selected upgrades on his ships leave him feeling confident of victory while Samantha thinks she at least has a good chance of a win. ----------------------
     
    The result should be a campaign that has much closer games, and while there are major benefits to being the team that is makes the most points and takes the least casualties, the individual matches should be more fair and enjoyable.
     
    Comments and additional suggestions are welcome. We'll be trying this out in a campaign starting here this week.
     
  10. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from jme in Disapointed with CC   
    I think you got something there. Maybe each systems should have a track of how firm is the control of the controlling side, and after the battle, depending on the victory margin, reduce the control on the planet or gain control over it (e.g. Corellia is +9 to the Empire, so only a 10-1 victory of the Rebellion in that system removes control of the Empire over it. A minor rebel victory 7-4 would reduce control to +6) ....something along these lines.
    Control could be increased over time, or through resources investment...
    This could be quite thematic: you need a major victory if you want to remove (imperial) control from one system. Minor victories would help undermine this control. Maybe imperial control could be tracked in this way and devise another way to track the influence of the Rebellion over the systems...
  11. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from jme in Disapointed with CC   
    Hi all!
    Our play group (of 6) was very excited to start our very first C campaign some 2 months ago. After reading some of the posts in this forum we decided to add some of the house rules proposed (mainly by @Green Knight here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241727-cc-my-ideas-for-house-rules-and-tweaks/)
    Now we are about to finish it, and the overall feeling is disapointment. Most of us want to restart our regular league soon, and are not too eager to start a new campaign, at least not without heavy house-ruling.
     
    I think most of the bad feelings come from these 2 points:
    A.- Lack of strategic depth. The game mechanics are soooo shallow that they could be non-existent. Strategically there are only 2 decisions to take:
        1. where to place the first bases and outpost (and there is little variation to this point. the decisions you should make are quite standard and variations difficult to defend)
        2. which system to assault each turn, which turns to be a no brainer because there are no limits: if you are assaulting an enemy controlled system, you go for the most valuable one (why not!?) In our campaign the Rebels had the upper hand from the beginning and they kept assaulting Corellia until they got it on the second attempt. Then they started with the next most valuable system....
      and that is all.
    B.- Repetitiveness. As you have to attach yourself to a fleet, and with the present fleet rebuilding rules, there is no variety from turn to turn. Attaching yourself to your fleet/team, that in other games works quite well, in this game has been a problem as we had the feeling of playing the same game once and again. With 6 players at least you have the possibility to play 3 different matches before you start replaying the same game with little variations. With just 4 players I guess it is even worse.
    There are also minor bugs. For example, losing by 1 point is the same as losing by 400 (except for the fact that now you have to rebuild your fleet). Thus, many matches ended by turn 4, because one of the players realized it was very unlikely he was going to win and hyperspaced (which was the right decision). Planning the whole match, schedulling the whole afternoon, take a 1 hour trip, just to play half game is very dissapointing!
     
    Some ideas we are musing over are:
    1.- access to some ships is limited to control over some systems or group of systems
    2.- communication lines joining the systems as secure travel routes. You can ignore them but you risk some drawback (a % of the fleet starts the match scarred...?)
    3.- systems defenses are improved by nearby controlled systems, maybe as reinforces coming in from hyperspace(?)
    4.- large defeats (jumping to hyperspace leads to large defeats) may lead to losing control of nearby systems
    5.- garrisons (you have to leave a % of your fleet to control a system). Maybe these garrisons are the ones brought as the reinforcements of point (3)
    6.- spynets and/or commandos (instead of spacers?) may be used to retain garrisons, or sabotage system resources, or ship repairs/building
     
    So, what is your experience? Have you incorporated house rules to improve the campaign?
     
  12. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from ForceSensitive in Disapointed with CC   
    I think you got something there. Maybe each systems should have a track of how firm is the control of the controlling side, and after the battle, depending on the victory margin, reduce the control on the planet or gain control over it (e.g. Corellia is +9 to the Empire, so only a 10-1 victory of the Rebellion in that system removes control of the Empire over it. A minor rebel victory 7-4 would reduce control to +6) ....something along these lines.
    Control could be increased over time, or through resources investment...
    This could be quite thematic: you need a major victory if you want to remove (imperial) control from one system. Minor victories would help undermine this control. Maybe imperial control could be tracked in this way and devise another way to track the influence of the Rebellion over the systems...
  13. Like
    dmborque reacted to ForceSensitive in Disapointed with CC   
    In our campaign, which technically we still have to do the final big battle of, we had some problems in similar fashion. Player skill was a very, very, very tiny pay off the issue though so there was that. In ours the Empire made really poor choices in the system draft and the Rebels started what we called The American Strategy of sniping all the repair yards, then taking Corellia turn one, and then then sitting back on this HUGE economic advantage. 
    I agree that the 'over-map' was really not that strategic interplay heavy as I'd like it to be. Something could be done there. Some did complain about being stick with the one fleet, especially when they kept losing and pulling up scars. We Rebels did assassinate each Imperial player at least once.
    Just to throw an idea in the hat, the one thing I found consistent in our games and in the forums is the win ratio not mattering, and the one game resolving the battle. So, again just spitballing here, what if to take a system you had to play all objectives at that system majority wins takes the system? Or win ratio determines success, like a 6-5 game locks the battle and it has to be fought again the following round, a 7-4 or 8-3 scores a minor victory and uses normal scoring, a 9-2 or 10-1 scores a major victory which is required to destroy a Base or Outpost. Two minor victories in a row will also destroy a base. 
  14. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Democratus in Disapointed with CC   
    I think you got something there. Maybe each systems should have a track of how firm is the control of the controlling side, and after the battle, depending on the victory margin, reduce the control on the planet or gain control over it (e.g. Corellia is +9 to the Empire, so only a 10-1 victory of the Rebellion in that system removes control of the Empire over it. A minor rebel victory 7-4 would reduce control to +6) ....something along these lines.
    Control could be increased over time, or through resources investment...
    This could be quite thematic: you need a major victory if you want to remove (imperial) control from one system. Minor victories would help undermine this control. Maybe imperial control could be tracked in this way and devise another way to track the influence of the Rebellion over the systems...
  15. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Lightrock in Disapointed with CC   
    Hi all!
    Our play group (of 6) was very excited to start our very first C campaign some 2 months ago. After reading some of the posts in this forum we decided to add some of the house rules proposed (mainly by @Green Knight here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241727-cc-my-ideas-for-house-rules-and-tweaks/)
    Now we are about to finish it, and the overall feeling is disapointment. Most of us want to restart our regular league soon, and are not too eager to start a new campaign, at least not without heavy house-ruling.
     
    I think most of the bad feelings come from these 2 points:
    A.- Lack of strategic depth. The game mechanics are soooo shallow that they could be non-existent. Strategically there are only 2 decisions to take:
        1. where to place the first bases and outpost (and there is little variation to this point. the decisions you should make are quite standard and variations difficult to defend)
        2. which system to assault each turn, which turns to be a no brainer because there are no limits: if you are assaulting an enemy controlled system, you go for the most valuable one (why not!?) In our campaign the Rebels had the upper hand from the beginning and they kept assaulting Corellia until they got it on the second attempt. Then they started with the next most valuable system....
      and that is all.
    B.- Repetitiveness. As you have to attach yourself to a fleet, and with the present fleet rebuilding rules, there is no variety from turn to turn. Attaching yourself to your fleet/team, that in other games works quite well, in this game has been a problem as we had the feeling of playing the same game once and again. With 6 players at least you have the possibility to play 3 different matches before you start replaying the same game with little variations. With just 4 players I guess it is even worse.
    There are also minor bugs. For example, losing by 1 point is the same as losing by 400 (except for the fact that now you have to rebuild your fleet). Thus, many matches ended by turn 4, because one of the players realized it was very unlikely he was going to win and hyperspaced (which was the right decision). Planning the whole match, schedulling the whole afternoon, take a 1 hour trip, just to play half game is very dissapointing!
     
    Some ideas we are musing over are:
    1.- access to some ships is limited to control over some systems or group of systems
    2.- communication lines joining the systems as secure travel routes. You can ignore them but you risk some drawback (a % of the fleet starts the match scarred...?)
    3.- systems defenses are improved by nearby controlled systems, maybe as reinforces coming in from hyperspace(?)
    4.- large defeats (jumping to hyperspace leads to large defeats) may lead to losing control of nearby systems
    5.- garrisons (you have to leave a % of your fleet to control a system). Maybe these garrisons are the ones brought as the reinforcements of point (3)
    6.- spynets and/or commandos (instead of spacers?) may be used to retain garrisons, or sabotage system resources, or ship repairs/building
     
    So, what is your experience? Have you incorporated house rules to improve the campaign?
     
  16. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Kanawolf in Disapointed with CC   
    That is a very interesting idea you got there, though I think it would take quite a lot of time to develop and playtest, as it is an almost new game altogether.
  17. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Kanawolf in Disapointed with CC   
    Hi all!
    Our play group (of 6) was very excited to start our very first C campaign some 2 months ago. After reading some of the posts in this forum we decided to add some of the house rules proposed (mainly by @Green Knight here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241727-cc-my-ideas-for-house-rules-and-tweaks/)
    Now we are about to finish it, and the overall feeling is disapointment. Most of us want to restart our regular league soon, and are not too eager to start a new campaign, at least not without heavy house-ruling.
     
    I think most of the bad feelings come from these 2 points:
    A.- Lack of strategic depth. The game mechanics are soooo shallow that they could be non-existent. Strategically there are only 2 decisions to take:
        1. where to place the first bases and outpost (and there is little variation to this point. the decisions you should make are quite standard and variations difficult to defend)
        2. which system to assault each turn, which turns to be a no brainer because there are no limits: if you are assaulting an enemy controlled system, you go for the most valuable one (why not!?) In our campaign the Rebels had the upper hand from the beginning and they kept assaulting Corellia until they got it on the second attempt. Then they started with the next most valuable system....
      and that is all.
    B.- Repetitiveness. As you have to attach yourself to a fleet, and with the present fleet rebuilding rules, there is no variety from turn to turn. Attaching yourself to your fleet/team, that in other games works quite well, in this game has been a problem as we had the feeling of playing the same game once and again. With 6 players at least you have the possibility to play 3 different matches before you start replaying the same game with little variations. With just 4 players I guess it is even worse.
    There are also minor bugs. For example, losing by 1 point is the same as losing by 400 (except for the fact that now you have to rebuild your fleet). Thus, many matches ended by turn 4, because one of the players realized it was very unlikely he was going to win and hyperspaced (which was the right decision). Planning the whole match, schedulling the whole afternoon, take a 1 hour trip, just to play half game is very dissapointing!
     
    Some ideas we are musing over are:
    1.- access to some ships is limited to control over some systems or group of systems
    2.- communication lines joining the systems as secure travel routes. You can ignore them but you risk some drawback (a % of the fleet starts the match scarred...?)
    3.- systems defenses are improved by nearby controlled systems, maybe as reinforces coming in from hyperspace(?)
    4.- large defeats (jumping to hyperspace leads to large defeats) may lead to losing control of nearby systems
    5.- garrisons (you have to leave a % of your fleet to control a system). Maybe these garrisons are the ones brought as the reinforcements of point (3)
    6.- spynets and/or commandos (instead of spacers?) may be used to retain garrisons, or sabotage system resources, or ship repairs/building
     
    So, what is your experience? Have you incorporated house rules to improve the campaign?
     
  18. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from GhostofNobodyInParticular in Disapointed with CC   
    Hi all!
    Our play group (of 6) was very excited to start our very first C campaign some 2 months ago. After reading some of the posts in this forum we decided to add some of the house rules proposed (mainly by @Green Knight here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241727-cc-my-ideas-for-house-rules-and-tweaks/)
    Now we are about to finish it, and the overall feeling is disapointment. Most of us want to restart our regular league soon, and are not too eager to start a new campaign, at least not without heavy house-ruling.
     
    I think most of the bad feelings come from these 2 points:
    A.- Lack of strategic depth. The game mechanics are soooo shallow that they could be non-existent. Strategically there are only 2 decisions to take:
        1. where to place the first bases and outpost (and there is little variation to this point. the decisions you should make are quite standard and variations difficult to defend)
        2. which system to assault each turn, which turns to be a no brainer because there are no limits: if you are assaulting an enemy controlled system, you go for the most valuable one (why not!?) In our campaign the Rebels had the upper hand from the beginning and they kept assaulting Corellia until they got it on the second attempt. Then they started with the next most valuable system....
      and that is all.
    B.- Repetitiveness. As you have to attach yourself to a fleet, and with the present fleet rebuilding rules, there is no variety from turn to turn. Attaching yourself to your fleet/team, that in other games works quite well, in this game has been a problem as we had the feeling of playing the same game once and again. With 6 players at least you have the possibility to play 3 different matches before you start replaying the same game with little variations. With just 4 players I guess it is even worse.
    There are also minor bugs. For example, losing by 1 point is the same as losing by 400 (except for the fact that now you have to rebuild your fleet). Thus, many matches ended by turn 4, because one of the players realized it was very unlikely he was going to win and hyperspaced (which was the right decision). Planning the whole match, schedulling the whole afternoon, take a 1 hour trip, just to play half game is very dissapointing!
     
    Some ideas we are musing over are:
    1.- access to some ships is limited to control over some systems or group of systems
    2.- communication lines joining the systems as secure travel routes. You can ignore them but you risk some drawback (a % of the fleet starts the match scarred...?)
    3.- systems defenses are improved by nearby controlled systems, maybe as reinforces coming in from hyperspace(?)
    4.- large defeats (jumping to hyperspace leads to large defeats) may lead to losing control of nearby systems
    5.- garrisons (you have to leave a % of your fleet to control a system). Maybe these garrisons are the ones brought as the reinforcements of point (3)
    6.- spynets and/or commandos (instead of spacers?) may be used to retain garrisons, or sabotage system resources, or ship repairs/building
     
    So, what is your experience? Have you incorporated house rules to improve the campaign?
     
  19. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from thorrk in Disapointed with CC   
    Hi all!
    Our play group (of 6) was very excited to start our very first C campaign some 2 months ago. After reading some of the posts in this forum we decided to add some of the house rules proposed (mainly by @Green Knight here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241727-cc-my-ideas-for-house-rules-and-tweaks/)
    Now we are about to finish it, and the overall feeling is disapointment. Most of us want to restart our regular league soon, and are not too eager to start a new campaign, at least not without heavy house-ruling.
     
    I think most of the bad feelings come from these 2 points:
    A.- Lack of strategic depth. The game mechanics are soooo shallow that they could be non-existent. Strategically there are only 2 decisions to take:
        1. where to place the first bases and outpost (and there is little variation to this point. the decisions you should make are quite standard and variations difficult to defend)
        2. which system to assault each turn, which turns to be a no brainer because there are no limits: if you are assaulting an enemy controlled system, you go for the most valuable one (why not!?) In our campaign the Rebels had the upper hand from the beginning and they kept assaulting Corellia until they got it on the second attempt. Then they started with the next most valuable system....
      and that is all.
    B.- Repetitiveness. As you have to attach yourself to a fleet, and with the present fleet rebuilding rules, there is no variety from turn to turn. Attaching yourself to your fleet/team, that in other games works quite well, in this game has been a problem as we had the feeling of playing the same game once and again. With 6 players at least you have the possibility to play 3 different matches before you start replaying the same game with little variations. With just 4 players I guess it is even worse.
    There are also minor bugs. For example, losing by 1 point is the same as losing by 400 (except for the fact that now you have to rebuild your fleet). Thus, many matches ended by turn 4, because one of the players realized it was very unlikely he was going to win and hyperspaced (which was the right decision). Planning the whole match, schedulling the whole afternoon, take a 1 hour trip, just to play half game is very dissapointing!
     
    Some ideas we are musing over are:
    1.- access to some ships is limited to control over some systems or group of systems
    2.- communication lines joining the systems as secure travel routes. You can ignore them but you risk some drawback (a % of the fleet starts the match scarred...?)
    3.- systems defenses are improved by nearby controlled systems, maybe as reinforces coming in from hyperspace(?)
    4.- large defeats (jumping to hyperspace leads to large defeats) may lead to losing control of nearby systems
    5.- garrisons (you have to leave a % of your fleet to control a system). Maybe these garrisons are the ones brought as the reinforcements of point (3)
    6.- spynets and/or commandos (instead of spacers?) may be used to retain garrisons, or sabotage system resources, or ship repairs/building
     
    So, what is your experience? Have you incorporated house rules to improve the campaign?
     
  20. Like
    dmborque reacted to Green Knight in CC My ideas for house rules and tweaks   
    ##### THE CORELLIAN CONFLICT #####
    #### WELCOME TO THE CORELLIAN CONFLICT ####
    These are some ideas I have for CC house rules, based on my (still somewhat limited) experience (playing in 2 right now).
    Not saying the CC NEEDS these changes, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only gamer who likes to play around with extra options and tweaks.
    Also contains a few CLARIFICATIONS and rules INTERPRETATIONS.
    Finally I've added some NOTES, explaining my thinking.
    FEEL FREE TO USE ALL, SOME, OR NONE AT ALL. 
    Feedback and other ideas very welcome indeed.
    #### NEW RULES ####
    ### ATTACKING STATIONS ###
    ## ARMED STATION ##
    The station attack values have been transposed. It should have 2 RED + 2 BLUE battery and 1 BLUE anti-squad.
    #### SETUP ####
    ### CREATE TEAMS ###
    The CC is primarily decided by PLAYER SKILL. Care should be taken to make teams as even as possible, unless all participants are looking for a more competitive experience.
    ### BUILD FLEETS ###
    ## HANDICAP ##
    When building starting fleets: 
    - give rookies +20 fleet points
    - give veteran players -20 fleet points
    - all other players (those with "average" skills for the group in question) start with the standard 400  fleet points
    It's possible to extend the handicap to including the final max score too: 520 for rookies, 480 for the hardcore veterans.
    ### PLACE BASES ###
    Stickers are placed in the following order:
    IMP: Corellia
    IMP P1: Base
    REB P1: 2 Presence, 1 each of Base and Outpost
    IMP P2: Base
    REB P2: 2 Presence, 1 each of Base and Outpost
    IMP P3: Base
    REB P3: 2 Presence, 1 each of Base and Outpost
    NOTE: This is the order that makes the most sense, both in terms of starting balance and most varied starting scenarios.
    #### THE CAMPAIGN TURN ####
    ### STRATEGY PHASE ###
    ## SECRECY, FLEETS ##
    Fleets are NOT revealed prior to declaring assaults - they are considered secret information until match-ups have been decided. Once revealed the information can be freely shared with teammates. On subsequent round the same applies; the refitted and expanded fleets are secret until after match-ups are complete.
    When battles are declared, use the name of the admirals involved to identify fleets. I.e. Admiral ACKBAR launches an assault on the Imperial base at Nubia. Darth Vader, forewarned by his spies, is waiting for him there.
    NOTE: This rule takes away some of the leading side's ability to dictate engagements. It will probably also lead to more varied fleets and more "random" match-ups as sides try to outguess and adapt to their opponents' builds.
    NOTE2: This rule allows Spynet tokens to have a secondary use (spying on an enemy fleet roster).
    ## SECRECY, RESOURCES ##
    Teams should at all times keep a detailed record of their bases and outposts, their scarred ships and veterans, their refit and resource expenditure. After fleets have been revealed the opposing team may request to verify that everything has been done in accordance with the rules.
    ## SPECIAL ASSAULTS ##
    # HYPERLANE RAID #
    At the end of the game, the Rebel player gains 1 Victory token for each objective token remaining in the Imperial setup area (but not if it's in the middle "neutral zone").
    NOTE: This is intended to discourage Imperial turtle tactics. The Imperial play CAN still turtle, but at the very least he needs to get his tokens into the neutral zone before game's end.
    # SHOW OF FORCE #
    Unchanged. 
    ## 1ST ROUND ASSAULTS RESTRICTION ##
    No BASE assaults are allowed on round 1.
    NOTE: The reason for this is an early assault can tilt the balance of the campaign too early. Rebels take Corellia on round 1? Or Imps take a Rebel base? Or one side gets repulsed with heavy losses? Add some Special Assaults that end up favoring one side and it's suddenly not as fun or challenging as it's supposed to be.
    ### BATTLE PHASE ###
    ## SCORING BATTLES ##
    On p. 9 of the booklet it says the winner always gets AT LEAST 1 CP. This is incorrect. The scoring on p. 10 is authoritative.
    ### MANAGEMENT PHASE ###
    ## DETERMINE BATTLE EFFECTS ##
    This is the same as in the booklet, only reformatted for ease of understanding:
    • Attacker wins (base or outpost): gains CP equal to Victory bonus value of that location.
    • Attacker wins (unoccupied): gains 1 CP.
    • Defender wins (base or outpost, or unoccupied: gains 1 CP.
    • Special assault: neither player gains any CP, regardless of who wins or the Victory bonus value of that location.
    NOTE: This means that winning a battle at a +0 location where there is a base/outposts gains the attacker NOTHING if he wins, but the defender gets 1 CP. But if the system is unoccupied, the winner always gets 1 CP, regardless of the Victory bonus value. This is intentional (effectively discourages the Empire from going after suspected Rebel outposts).
    ## CONSTRUCT NEW BASES AND OUTPOSTS ##
    The winner of a special assault (Hyperlane Raid or Show of Force) does NOT get to potion of building a base/outpost at that location.
    NOTE: This is intended to encourage more regular assaults (which indirectly makes Skilled Spacers more worthwhile). Special Assaults are now able to give a short-term boost in resources, but at a price (no construction option).
    ## REFIT AND EXPAND FLEETS ##
    # DISBANDING #
    If a player wishes, he may disband a ship, squadron and upgrade. The component is removed from his fleet and the fleet points are lost.
    If a unique component is disbanded, it returns to the pool of available uniques and can be added to any fleet on a SUBSEQUENT round.
    The admiral can't be disbanded. The only way to get rid of an admiral is to retire the entire fleet.
    Titles can't be removed from ships, but disbanding a ship with a title disbands the title too (the title is then returned to the pool as described above).
    NOTE: This could give an edge to the side with the strongest economy. That's not the intention. The intention is to help players who make some bad choices early on, or players who have ended up with choices that are now sub-par given the evolving nature of the campaign.
    # CHANGING SHIP MODELS #
    A ship can be turned into a costlier version of the same ship by paying the difference in resources. 
    A ship can be turned into a cheaper version of the same ship for free (the fleet points are lost).
    Ships must be unscarred before they can change model.
    # SQUADRON UPGRADES #
    A player has the option of upgrading a generic squadron to a unique squadron of the same type by paying the difference in resources.
    Squadrons must be unscarred before they can be upgraded.
    # GENERIC SQUADRON VETERANS #
    If a generic squadron qualifies for veterancy, the owning may decide to upgrade it as described above and keep the veterancy. If the player doesn't wish to upgrade (or can't, because there are no remaining uniques) the veterancy is lost.
    # SET ASIDE COMPONENTS #
    Cards NOT equipped to any ship still count towards the fleet point total. Only cards that are disbanded no longer count.
    # SQUADRON LIMIT #
    Fleets CANNOT be built with more than 1/3 the fleet points in squadrons.
    When expanding a fleet, a squadron CANNOT be added if it would cause the 1/3 rule to be broken after it was added. 
    If battle losses causes a fleet to exceed this limit, it CAN still bring all its squads into battle.
    #### ADDITIONAL CAMPAIGN RULES ####
    ### HYPERSPACE RETREAT ###
    ## RIEEKAN ##
    A Rieekan zombie that retreats into hyperspace is still destroyed in the status phase and becomes scarred.
    NOTE: In effect retreats are no better (or worse) for Rieekan than any other admiral. 
    ### STRATEGIC EFFECTS ###
    ## DIPLOMATS ##
    New use: 2 Diplomats can be spent to block attacks on any location with a PRESENCE sticker. 3 Diplomats can block attacks on a location with a BASE or OUTPOST sticker.
    NOTE: Diplomats are still kind of weak, but at least now they can be used to block attacks on a key base or exposed outpost in a valuable system.
    ## SKILLED SPACERS ##
    New use: Spacers that are not spent to change objectives can instead be spent to give a single ship or unique squadron a Veteran token for the duration of the battle. Ships/squads that already are veterans gain no additional benefit. 
    ## SHIPYARDS ##
    Unchanged. These are excellent already!
    ## SPYNET ##
    New use: Prior to declaring assaults, a spynet token can be spent to look at the fleet roster (except objectives) of any one enemy fleet. This one is only relevant if using the secret fleets rule.
    ### RETIRE THE FLEET ###
    If a fleet is retired, all unique cards (including the admiral and any titles) are returned to the pool of available components and are available for re-use on any SUBSEQUENT round (same as disbanding). 
    NOTE: This rule aims NOT to punish a side that's forced to retire a fleet. Having to start from scratch with a 400-point fleet is bad enough. Even the retired admiral could reappear later on!
    #### CORELLIAN SECTOR LOCATIONS ####
    The booklet lists both Corfai and Talfaglio as +1 VP location, while the map says +2/+0 respectively. Given the difference in resources the map is probably correct.
    Corfai: Use the values on the map (+2 CP).
    Talfaglio: Use the values on the map (+0 CP).
  21. Like
    dmborque reacted to Green Knight in CC Observations and strategic advice   
    I've spent some time mulling over the CC rules and have jotted down some of my musings.
    Please note that actual experience is based on A) an ongoing vassal campaign (Imperial, Vader, primary assaulter), B) a just starting RL campaign (Imperial, Vader, Grand Admiral), C) observing ongoing vassal campaigns and reading forum posts/blog articles.
    So I'm by no means an authoritative source. Keep that in mind when reading, so you don't mistake my observations/claims for hard facts.
    This is purely with a 6-player version in mind. I haven't even considered the implications of running it with less/more players.
    ##### OVERVIEW ##### 
    First and foremost: the Corellian Conflict is largely decided by player skill; it's the outcome of the battles that decide the outcome of the campaign. If a team loses every battle it's screwed, no matter how clever the strategic play. 
    With that in mind I think it's in everyone's best interest to make teams as equal as possible (in terms of player skill) and keep builds "reasonable". By equal is mean it's not a good idea for 3 strong players to group together in one faction, with the aim of murdering an opposing team of weaker players. Just don't. No point even starting. You'll never get to the end. By reasonable I don't mean sub-par, but maybe not try to eke out every last drop of competitive edge to grind your buddies into the dust. For all 6 players to stick around to the end they need to have a good time. You can lose and still have a good time. But you can't always be frustrated or helpless. That kills the campaign. Applies both to the actual battles and the overall campaign.
    That said there can be only 1 winner of each battle and 1 winning team. So for there to be any feeling of progress for a team, there must be the possibility of failure. No sugar coating that fact. But I think everyone gets the difference between a hard-fought win, and a slow wasting where one team is always superior to the others.
    #### ATTRITION STRATEGY ####
    CC is a war of attrition: You need to bleed the enemy more than he bleeds you, IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCERS EACH TEAM HAS AVAILABLE.
    Always keep in mind who can afford losses: you or your opponent. It makes no sense to kill an enemy squad or flotilla if you'll lose two squads or a more valuable ship. Then it's better to disengage or even retreat. This is VERY DIFFERENT from the normal tournament mindset.
    Unless there are extra resources at stake of course: a base defense maybe, or a special assault, or just the option to build a base at a good location. These things can impact your willingness to fight and take losses. Always evaluate your potential losses vs potential gains, both long term and short, for your own fleet and for your side. 
    And keep in mind the status of the enemy side too: maybe the fleet you're fighting has many scarred ships; if you can kill them, even if it leave you weakened next round, it can benefit your side as a whole and maybe force that enemy admiral into retirement (possibly taking several uniques with him).
    ### HYPERSPACE RETREATS ###
    Learn to use them. Time your attacks so you can disengage by hyper on rounds 4 or 5 if you need to. Sure, they ship counts as destroyed for VP, but you don't have to repair it.
    Not much more to say than that. 
    Special note: If rebels insist that a Rieekan zombie that retreats doesn't get scarred by retreating, that it miraculously healed instead, just pick up your stuff and leave. You're trying to have a good time here, but if they want to play at trolls, let them do it alone. And no, I'm not joking.
    ### ONCE BITTEN, TWICE SHY ###
    It's OK to take losses in a battle. Even fairly big losses. IF you can refit that is.
    If you don't have enough resources, you may well have to go into battle with scarred ships and squads (especially early in the game, when you've no banked resources). PERMANENTLY losing a generic squad or flotilla isn't so bad, but even a raider or TRC90 can hurt very bad indeed (remember they take their upgrades with them, except the admiral). Losing a big ship can cripple you completely.
    My point is you can fight a hard battle. Once. But then you need to take it a bit slow in your next battle, then repair the rest of your ship, get some new upgrades, and be ready again the turn after.
    That's MUCH preferably to getting hammered twice in a row. That will only leave you crippled - or force you to retire.
    ## LAST STAND ##
    If you know you will have to retire a fleet, talk to your team: maybe it's better if you go all in and try to hurt an enemy fleet as much as possible before retiring. Might not always work, but it can help tip the balance in favor of your team.
    #### ASSAULT STRATEGY ####
    Whomever is behind in CP (Rebels are behind if tied) gets 2 assaults, which is usually preferable. So it's best to lead in refit/resources, inflict more losses on the enemy than he does you, AND have less CP. It might not be possible, but if it is, always try for it. As a side note this makes Special Assaults even nicer: they give no CP, but plenty of resources.
    Imperials will want to set up their remaining bases ASAP. Preferably in good systems, but even a decent system is better than none at all, as it gets you the 25 base resource point, plus whatever the location offers.
    Rebels have less base options, but a lot of outposts. They want to either grab those key special or just grab the high-resource locations. 
    ### SPECIAL ASSAULTS ###
    To me it seems Show of Force is laughably biased to favor an Imperial victory, with 80-120 resources in the bank. Conversely the Hyperlane Raid is doable, but much harder to score points off.
    The jury is still out on this one (I've a forum thread going), but that's my feeling ATM. Given the attrition aspect of the campaign, I think the Hyperlane objective needs a little tweak to make it more balanced.
    Imps: Always do Show of Force. There is no downside. At the worst you'll split resources 40-40 as you're forced to flee after taking out 1 station. Losses will be light, but no CP are gained. And that's the worst case. Preferably repeat as often as possible/needed.
    Rebs: I don't know what to say. Declare it at your own peril, be prepared for turtling and bring a fleet optimized for speed and punch. Then maybe you'll get 80 points off it. Maybe.
    ### BASE ASSAULTS ####
    Base assaults are hard, but not impossible. By the look of the Fighter objective the advantage is valued at about 40 points.
    ## FIGHTERS ##
    Can be significant. 5 extra TIEs. 2 TIE Bombers and a Decimator. 2 Defenders and a TIE. 4 Y-wings. 2 X-wings and 2 Zeds. 2 Lancers and a Y. Can be enough to keep a squad-heavy opponenet at bay, or boost an already strong fighter force.
    ## ION CANNON ##
    It's pretty **** strong. Esp. if the defender has Strategic and you don't. The opposite is true if the defender doesn't have strategic (shouldn't pick this one).
    ## STATION ##
    Station is nice. Firepower is mediocre, but the extra activation can be significant. 13 hull wo defense tokens isn't much though, but still it's shots not fire at your ships.
    #### LOCATION STRETEGY ####
    There are a total of 25 locations on the CC map:
    - There are 13 locations in the Corellian system and on the hyperlanes.
    - There are 12 locations outside the Corellian system and on the hyperlanes.
    - Note that Crash's Drift is ON a hyperlane.
    ### DISCREPANCIES ###
    If there are discrepancies between map/rules booklet, the map takes precedence (Corfai, Talfaglio).
    ### SPECIALS ###
    There a 4 types of specials: Shipyard (6), spynet (3), skilled spacers (6), and diplomats (3). There are (7) locations without specials.
    Specials vary in utility: yards (premium), spynets (good), spacers (decent), diplomats (rubbish).
    ## YARDS (Premium) ##
    Locations: Corellia, Nubia, Saberhing, Selonia, Xquyine, Vagran
    Hands down the best special, since you WILL be needing those refit points! One yard gives 5 refit to EACH player. That's 15 points with 3 players a SIDE. On top of any resources from a base or the location bonus. Take Corellia itself: With a base it generates 25+20=45 resources total, plus 5x3=15 refit total, for a unified total of 60 refit/resources! Even Vagran, the weakest yard location generates 25+8+5x3=48 refit/resources.
    Starting with setup: GRAB AS MANY YARDS AS YOUR SIDE CAN GET HOLD OFF, EVEN IF IT MEANS PASSING OVER LOCATIONS WITH BETTER RESOURCE VALUES AND/OR OTHER SPECIALS. This means Imperials will get 4 yards (Corellia, Nubia, Selonia, Vagran) and Rebels 2 yards (Saberhing, Xyquine). This means 50/40 refit to Imps/Rebs round 1, barring any lost bases. 
    The Empire MAY forgo the 4th yard (Vagran) if they want to neuter Rebel hopes of running the anti-Show of Force "Diplomats tactic". I'd advise against it, as this tactic pretty much sucks anyway, and if the Rebels go for it, good for the Empire. Also, even assuming maximum rebel success and focus for the first 2 turns
    ## SPYNET (Good) ##
    Are assigned to players after assaults are declared. Allows you to redeploy a ship or squad pair. The ability to redeploy after deployment is finished can be very strong. It allows feints - and recovering from a bad initial setup. 
    Imperials should grab 1 Spynet. It's just too good not to. Redeploy your ISD or Demo? Trick the Rebels during Hyperlane Raid or Show of Force? Grabbing 1 also prevents the Rebels from grabbing all 3, which can be important. You don't get too many resources from spynet locations (5/4/2 respectively), but don't forget the base you build provide 25 points, so it's not so bad.
    Rebels want at least 1, preferably all 3. Out-deploying the Empire is always a good thing and this really helps with that. Another good reason NOT to pursue diplomats!
    ## SPACERS (Decent) ##
    Are assigned to players after assaults are declared. Allows the DEFENDER to swap out 1 objective per spacer. The ability to tailor your objectives to fit whatever fleet you're facing sounds pretty sweet, until you realize how rarely you'll actually get to do this. Between Special Assaults, Base Defense and all the locations with Campaign Objectives only, spacers just don't come into play very often.
    Imperials can grab 1 spacers if they kind of happen to be in a system they kind of happen to have won a battle at. If that system isn't too shabby (like Duro or Crash's Drift). That 1 spacer should be enough to handle any non-base defense, non-raid attacks the Rebels might mount.
    Rebels have a bit more use for Spacers. Not a whole lot more, but still. Depending on the locations chosen for Rebel OUTPOSTS, it can be nice to have a spacer or three if the Empire assaults. Hardly essential, but not complete rubbish either.
    ## DIPLOMATS (Rubbish) ##
    Largely useless (well, completely useless for Imperials, marginally useful for Rebels). Are placed before assaults are declared. Can be used to prevent assaults from happening at UNOCCUPIED locations only. Applies equally to both sides equally. Diplomats seem so cool... until you realize you can't actually protect your bases or outposts with them. Bummer. You can only block your opponents (and your own team) from assaulting an unoccupied system. Typically used to block access to Premium/Good systems.
    Imperials have NO USE WHATSOEVER for diplomats and should AVOID THEM AT ALL COST. Why? Because they are limited to 7 bases. They can't afford to pick up enough diplomats to even try to make them worthwhile. Also diplomats aren't good enough to be concerned about the Rebel side picking up all of them. 
    Someone has tried to make a case Rebels can grab all the diplomats and thereby shut down the Empire's ability to conduct Show of Force assaults. This is a failed tactic. Why? Because there are 12 systems eligible for Show of Force. There are 3 diplomats, one of whom is located in the Corellian system (Drall). Thus, if the rebels use all their stickers during setup to A) grab 3 diplomats and B) maximize their presence in the hinterlands, they will have 5 presence stickers and 3 diplomats, making them able to block 8 of 12 locations. Useless. 
    And since there is very little reason for the Empire to establish early bases outside Corellia/the Hyperlanes, the rebels will get no help there. Even assuming 2 successful Rebel attacks during round 1, they can only have 7 stickers + 3 diplomats on round 2. Still useless. 
    They could, hypothetically, manage another 2 assaults (1-1 after round 1, giving rebs initiative) during round 2, so could have (with another 2 wins) have 9 stickers + 3 diplomats come round 3, and would be able to stop the Empire from launching a Show of Force. BUT the hinterlands are full of crap locations which kind of hurts the Rebels AND if the Rebels have done THIS WELL, THIS EARLY, chances are that the Empire is not going to do well anyway. FINALLY, given a more typical setup and playthrough, the Empire will have AT LEAST one system available for Show of Force, making the diplomat gambit entirely useless. 
    Now, I've already said that I think Show of Force is really strong for the Imps, so that might provide an incentive to go the Diplomat route. It's still a no go from me. I think it's too much of gamble, grabbing all those weaker systems and hoping you can block all attack options. What if it doesn't work? It only takes ONE eligible system to run Show of Force. One. And in the meantime the Empire is racking up more resources while the rebels are holding low-value Diplomat planets with their Outposts. 
    Feel free to disagree, but I just don't see how Diplomas are viable. 
    ### INITIAL SETUP STRATEGIES ###
    Given the above, it makes little sense to me not to do the following:
    Empire: Corellia 45+yards
    Empire: Nubia 41+yards
    Rebels: Saberhing [base] 41+yards
    Empire: Selonia 37+yards
    Rebels: Xyquine [base] 36+yards
    Empire: Vagran 33+yards
    Rebels: Duro [base] 42+spacers
    Rebels: Centerpoint [outpost] 5+spynet
    Rebels: Crash's Drift [outpost] 13+spacers
    Rebels: Raider's Point [outpost] 4+spynet
    Imps: 156 resources, 150 refit, 306 total
    Rebs: 141, 120 refit, 261 total
     
    Alternative Rebel strategy 1: drop spynets, maximize resources. Gain 11+14=25 extra resources from Polanis/Corfai, but no redeployment tokens. This invites the Empire to go outpost hunting in those +2 systems, which could give them an early lead. This can be to the Rebellion's advantage, securing the initiative for several round in a row while they catch up in points!
    Imps: 156 resources, 150 refit, 306 total
    Rebs: 165, 120 refit, 285 total
    Alternative Rebel strategy 2: go for diplomats, so possibly shut down Empire Show of Force in round 3+. Against a clever Imperial player this is rally hard to get to work, and the return is very limited (see above for more on this). 
    As a final note the Rebels can tweak their builds a bit. Crash's Drift, for example, is kind of hard to defend without a base, and pretty valuable, so the Imps might hit here early. If they do this on Round 1, use the spacers and the strongest defensive build to deny them. As an added bonus they can't do show of force this round AND the rebels will likely keep the initiative in round 2. And that's just one example of the kind of considerations that must be made.
    The Imps, however, have far less leeway IMO. Dropping Vagran in favor of Duro is the only viable tweak IMO, and even that is dubious.
    I think that's enough for now. Lots of things I haven't covered yet: fleet build archetypes, build strategies, refit strategies etc. Maybe I'll will write some more on that later.
    FEEDBACK/EXPERIENCES APPRECIATED!
  22. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from Arttemis in Armada Builder App   
    You can download Armada Fleets Designer from Amaazon, or directly from this site: https://plus.google.com/117131374075828331639/posts/e8SbTMusZn5
    Though it is an Android app, there are ways to run it on a desktop computer, using Android emulators, as I describe in this post: https://plus.google.com/117131374075828331639/posts/fp2y5Pnf65X
  23. Like
    dmborque got a reaction from MajorJuggler in 2016 Worlds Results   
    Mario Nuñez Jimenez is the 2 times (2015 & 2016) Spanish Champion (just in case you want to fill-in also this data).
  24. Like
    dmborque reacted to Vorpal Sword in The problem with ID is a bad tournament structure.   
    Swiss tournaments work best when you start with ranked players, seed them appropriately, and run nothing but Swiss rounds. Done properly, Swiss runs the same number of rounds as single-elimination for a given number of players, while producing a fairer result.
     
    Changing the tournament structure causes problems, though. Specifically, when you make a transition like the cut from Swiss to single-elimination rounds in an X-wing tournament, you create a number of issues in the last round: players who can't make the cut no matter how they perform, players who are guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) to make the cut regardless of their performance, and a whole bunch of issues in between.
    We currently have a hissing, spitting cat that's been dumped out of a sack: Organized Play introduced intentional draws to X-wing. When placed in combination with the Swiss-to-single-elimination structure, we have a group of players in every tournament (often just one or two, but potentially as many as the entire cut) who can be sure they proceed to the cut as long as they don't lose the final Swiss round, and those players also have a way to ensure they don't lose--just don't play.
    So how do we stuff the angry cat back into the sack? One solution is just to make IDs illegal again, and I do think that should happen. But while IDs are a very bad rule in X-wing, they're at most only half the problem: just getting rid of ID only eliminates the means rather than the motive.
    So what if we chase the motive, too? While we're all contacting Organized Play (we are all contacting Organized Play, right?) to let them know how frustrated we are, let's also let them know that while Swiss followed by an elimination cut works for Magic, it's no longer working for large X-wing tournaments. There are a lot of alternatives (double-elimination, round-robin with a cut to Swiss, or even straight Swiss with players ranked by ELO through every sanctioned event in a season), all of which have their own drawbacks, but none of which have the same issues that are currently helping put the community in an uproar.
    [EDIT: Fixed a minor copy-paste error. And the second error I introduced while fixing the first one.]
  25. Like
    dmborque reacted to Babaganoosh in Unbalanced scenarios?   
    Are you looking for asymmetric battles (each side has different objectives?), or symmetric missions designed for tournament play?
     
     
    As far as choosing which missions you play in your league, I recommend choosing which missions will be played well ahead of time and sending all players the missions or making them available for the players to read ahead of time.  That should allow players to build lists with the missions in mind and give them a degree of control over how much they build their lists with the intent of winning on objectives, or with a more traditional strategy.  
     
    There are quite a few missions out there that are compatible or designed for tournament-style play;  all 100pts, simple objectives, with an emphasis on balance (usually this means symmetrical scenarios).  
     
     
    J Rhea ran a league or tournament a while back that used a set of missions that he published on Mission Control.  They're well-written and standardized for easy tournament play.  The missions are all relatively straightforward and I think they're all symmetrical (both sides have the same objectives), so they should be very well-balanced.   I'll link them below:
     
    Bombing Run: Deathmatch with extra points for killing targets on the table.  Targets are especially vulnerable to missiles and torpedoes.
     
    Divide and Conquer: Deathmatch with area control.
     
    Escort Duty: Deathmatch. Extra points for escorting a ship off the enemy table edge.
     
    Minefield: Deathmatch with exploding mines.
     
    Recon Patrol: Deathmatch. 6 satellite tokens are on the table which can be captured for points.   
     
    Squad Leader: Deathmatch.  Each player designates one squad leader who can augment other ships with 'order tokens'.  Extra points for killing a squad leader.
     
     
     
    I wrote a few missions myself that were intended for tournament play.  Like J Rhea's missions these are also symmetrical and should be relatively well-balanced.    I'll also link them below:
     
    Satellite Control - area control mission
     
    Dogfight - deathmatch with special deployment rules
     
    The Jump Point - King of the hill style mission
     
    Vendetta - Deathmatch with extra points for killing a specific enemy pilot.
     
    Fleet Engagement - deathmatch with off-board fire support for each side
     
     
     
    There are also a lot of asymmetric missions out there; I've been compiling a large library on mission control of such missions.  You can either search around with my author name, or if you're interested in a specific point range/ mission type i can make more specific recommendations.  For your situation I'd recommend going with symmetric missions, but if you're looking for asymmetry I can also cover you.
×
×
  • Create New...