Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
period3

CC don't understand something

Recommended Posts

In Corellian conflict, why would you ever choose to fight on a non-base world?  Wouldn't the game just proceed with each person attacking the other's base? (we're playing two player). 

I haven't started playing yet, but this question has already come up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you assault a base, the defender gets to use the special "Base Defense" objectives instead of their regular objective cards.  These special objective cards strongly favor the defender, which means they can chew up your fleet and you'll have little to show for it in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I defended a base last week, choosing the Armed Station objective. I already had one more activation, so with two it was very easy to stall until he got in close with my Victory Is. I lost one VSD, a Gozanti, and a few squadrons. He had like two TIE Fighters alive at the end. It was brutal. Getting RRBB for free against ships is really strong and activations are always good to have. Ion Cannon seems really powerful as well, I would have taken it if my list ran any Strategic squadrons. I was still willing to consider it but having to deploy my entire fleet first was a dealbreaker. 

 

Anyway my point is that these objectives are (by design) unfair. There's a high risk of your fleet getting a broken back and having little to show for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hockeyzombie said:

I defended a base last week, choosing the Armed Station objective. I already had one more activation, so with two it was very easy to stall until he got in close with my Victory Is. I lost one VSD, a Gozanti, and a few squadrons. He had like two TIE Fighters alive at the end. It was brutal. Getting RRBB for free against ships is really strong and activations are always good to have. Ion Cannon seems really powerful as well, I would have taken it if my list ran any Strategic squadrons. I was still willing to consider it but having to deploy my entire fleet first was a dealbreaker. 

 

Anyway my point is that these objectives are (by design) unfair. There's a high risk of your fleet getting a broken back and having little to show for it. 

Wait, you defended a base with Vics and he had surviving TIEs? Is this a typo or did you play a casual game with CC objectives? If the latter, doesn't that kind of muddle with the results given that the CC Base Defense Objectives are more biased towards second player than normal objectives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Wait, you defended a base with Vics and he had surviving TIEs? Is this a typo or did you play a casual game with CC objectives? If the latter, doesn't that kind of muddle with the results given that the CC Base Defense Objectives are more biased towards second player than normal objectives?

We both played as Imperials because he didn't own any Rebel stuff when we started (except for the core set stuff) and I didn't really want to play Rebels. So we just agreed that I was the "Rebels" for purposes of the campaign map but would field Imperial lists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hockeyzombie said:

We both played as Imperials because he didn't own any Rebel stuff when we started (except for the core set stuff) and I didn't really want to play Rebels. So we just agreed that I was the "Rebels" for purposes of the campaign map but would field Imperial lists. 

 

The Rebels cannot win a campaign in which they do not participate!

I compliment you on your ingenuity, Admirals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MattShadowlord said:

 

The Rebels cannot win a campaign in which they do not participate!

I compliment you on your ingenuity, Admirals.

Apparently they could, I won that campaign. At one point I was thinking of using Imperial units but having to use Rebel unique upgrades, as if a fleet had defected and the Rebellion had sent commanders and staff to lead them. I mainly didn't because I expected it would be game-breaking, and I wanted to have access to Demolisher, Avenger, and Relentless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hockeyzombie said:

Apparently they could, I won that campaign. At one point I was thinking of using Imperial units but having to use Rebel unique upgrades, as if a fleet had defected and the Rebellion had sent commanders and staff to lead them. I mainly didn't because I expected it would be game-breaking, and I wanted to have access to Demolisher, Avenger, and Relentless. 

Admiral Harkov gets Rebel upgrades, admiral Zaarin gets 2 modification upgrades on his command ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...