Jump to content
Stovrose38

Corellian Conflict One Sided?

Recommended Posts

So over the course of a year, I have organized and run the Corellian Conflict with my local store 4 times, each varying with who participated on which teams... There were some primarily rebels playing imperials some times and vice versa, even the team make ups of the players themselves were rearranged.  Anyway, every single campaign has come down to 3-4 turns only and the rebels get CRUSHED every time.  12-3 was the best turn out for the rebels.  What have you guys been seeing?  Was the campaign unintentionally designed one sided?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard this from others too, but it has not been my own experience.  I've only played two campaigns--one was a complete blowout in favor of the Rebels; the other was a narrow Imp victory that came down to fleet makeups in the AOA (Imps had large ships; Rebels didn't). 

The Rebel victory had relatively balanced teams; the Imp victory, the teams were definitely stacked in the Imps' favor.  That one was a 2v2, with three very experienced players and one brand new guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive played one imperial blowout, one that started as an imperial blowout and the rebels came back for a mostly even conclusion (yet to be resolved), and then one where the rebels blewout early and the Imps came back with the AOA being started very soon. The latter two were on vassal through the forums.

My opinion, anecdotal as it admittedly is, is that the box itself is pretty balanced, obvious flaws (special assaults at release) aside. However, its a huge playstyle shift that some players account for and execute and others dont. This isnt linked to skill, its purely mindset. You can be an awesome player in tournaments and get crushed in the CC and come to the conclusion that it is imbalanced, when in reality you played it like you play a tournament game round after round and put yourself in a hole due to your decisions. 

I know personally I am a far more dangerous opponent in the CC setting than I am in a tournament setting, because my mind works better in the CC mindset than the tournament mode of win big or lose big and if you lose big then next game you have to win BIGGER. It is that kind of logic that imbalances CC far more than the contents of the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree with BrobaFett on this one. I am currently in the middle of a 4-player CC campaign as Rebels. We just finished round 2 and Imps are leading 3-1, but they have taken quite a beating (one player is already considering scrapping his fleet and re-rolling). This round we intentionally decided to play conservatively and preserve our ships as much as possible to try and maximize our upgrade potential next round. That meant we ended up losing an outpost (decided to hyperspace out rather than stand and fight) when it was obvious the win was going to be too costly.

Not sure if we are going to win in the long run, but overall I think it's pretty balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we are playing a 6 player CC and at first we thought it was one sided until we reread and reread the rules again and find it to be balanced. a few thing needed to be tweaked but nothing was broken. I think many balance problems come from the players and there strategy then the rules 

Edited by X Wing Nut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives me hope. Our 2 campaigns fell apart, and we kept adding rules instead of trying to change strategy.

About the come backs: how far behind were the sides? Is loosing Corellia turn 1 impossible to come back from? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Xeletor

In the last example (rebels pull ahead and imps catch up) Rebels took Correllia round 1, and now its round 4 or 5 and the AOA has been declared with all fleets at 500 points. I am playing Rebels and despite the strong start we have little to no advantage going into the AoA. 

In fact, since we were ahead point wise, the Imperials got to declare the assault so they get first player, it might actually mean we are handicapped a bit by our lead.

Edited by BrobaFett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrapping fleets is a trap IMO.

99% of the time it is better to just run away and hyperspace a fleet than scrap.

In our Rebel comeback one fleet dropped to 360 I think, and was considering scrapping, but because when you scrap you forfeit that rounds resources because we gained more than 40 each it was better to keep it and not sacrifice the uniques in the fleet. 

Unless you build your initial fleet specifically to be scrapped if there is a hard counter that you see across the table from you by not putting any uniques in your first build I would never suggest you scrap. If you do decide to scrap, you should look forward at your chances of victory and scrap round 1 and no later.

Then at worst you will be facing a 450ish point fleet which means you can be your teams first assault on a world that doesn't help your oponent but gets them bonus victory points so they get a lead and make sure that you get 2 assaults (one throw away assault you lose intentionally to heal) and a second for your special assault.

In a campaign that lasts 5-6 rounds getting more than 2 rounds behind means that by scrapping you lose your chance to win the all out assault.

Edited by BrobaFett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we've run into the problem at my store where the Imperial Players are playing 3-2 ISD lists on turn one, with Motti and Konstantine and the rebels just get so badly trashed in the first 2 rounds and the imperials end up with 4-5 locations with refit point generators that the rebels really don't stand a chance, and if they scrap, they play with 400 point single upgrade lists against dual or triple ISD lists with leading shots, gunnery teams of doom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stovrose38 said:

Yeah we've run into the problem at my store where the Imperial Players are playing 3-2 ISD lists on turn one, with Motti and Konstantine and the rebels just get so badly trashed in the first 2 rounds and the imperials end up with 4-5 locations with refit point generators that the rebels really don't stand a chance, and if they scrap, they play with 400 point single upgrade lists against dual or triple ISD lists with leading shots, gunnery teams of doom

This is the issue I've run into in my campaigns.  My Imperial allies have (rightfully, I think) determined that an ISD with ECM is the strongest opening bid you can make in the campaign.  Grab three of those, start them at speed three and ram them down the throat of whatever ship the Rebels bring.  I don't think the campaign is inherently unbalanced, but in a one upgrade world, the ISD is so pound-for-pound better than anything else available to either side that the first 1-3 games feel really badly unbalanced.  Not to mention if you take Vader with that fleet, you also have fleet-wide rerolls so your attacks rarely whiff.  I'm firmly convinced that the best fleet to start a CC with is 3 ISD w/ECM and Vader as the Admiral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has got me thinking about the CC and I would suggest a very simple but effective balancing home rule- 

No base assaults or special assaults round 1.

This simultaneously prevents the rebels from their relatively base assault taking correllia and imps from doing their stupidly easy special assault.

At this point, I think this is sufficient to balance the box and give each side a fair shot at winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

we have 6 players in ours and we added a rule you don't play the same player again until you have played all other players. anyone else done this?

I've heard that one, but controlling matchups and such is a huge part of the tactical fun of CC. Sometimes you face a superior force and have to run. 

If you don't like the idea of thematic battles like this just play a 3 round round robin tournament with increasing fleet size. Its not a bad thing, but if you are doing it for balance reasons I feel it is an attempt to balance the "human" element of the game at the expense of the strategy and theme of the campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played through 1 full campaign as the Imperial Grand Admiral and I'm currently playing in a second, also as the Imperial GA.

For my first campaign, we started with 300 point fleets and it lasted 4 turns with the Empire winning 12-7.  However, it was much closer than the final score appears.  The Imperials lost Nubia on turn 1 and then Corellia on turn 3!  We were behind the Rebels in VPs for rounds 1-3.  At the end of the third turn it was 7-6 Rebels which meant we had the initiative.  The Rebels scrapped a fleet on purpose to tie it up and regain the initiative going into turn 4 (a bold gambit).  This let them launch 2 assaults and potentially score enough VPs to win the campaign before we called for the All Out Offensive on turn 5.  They only needed to win 2 base assaults to triumph.  Unfortunately for the Rebels, we swept all 3 games and scored 5 points on round 4 to win it.

I've recently kicked off a second campaign and have a third lined up for November.  Presently I don't feel that it's weighted in favor of the Empire – especially as the Rebels can have a much better set of starting planets, or at least more strategic options than just picking all Repair Yards – but I'll need to play through 3-4 times before forming a more definitive opinion. 

As an aside: I do think there's a lot more to picking planets than just grabbing all the Repair Yards.  Factoring in how to deny your opponent bonus VPs from your planets while at the same time letting them pick all the +2 VP locations so you can harvest those points is an important consideration.

Also, as the Rebels, picking where to launch your attacks is critical.  By targeting weak planet locations a loss doesn't hurt you as long as your fleet isn't unduly damaged.  If you win then great!  Slap an outpost on that planet for free.  If you lose, then the Imperials have to weigh using up 1 of their base slots and spending 15 points on a near worthless planet, just so they can wait a turn to make 12-18 points back.

I started my second CC campaign last weekend.  This campaign was specifically designed for beginners so I added a few extra restrictions which I feel have been helpful and would happily apply in some measure to any campaign, beginner or not:

250 point fleets, no large ships, 75 points of squadrons maximum, only TIE Fighters/Howlrunner and X-Wings/Luke Skywalker.  On subsequent turns more squadron options are unlocked.  I also ruled no turn-1 base assaults and no special assaults for the entire campaign.  All of this has resulted in some very interesting fleet builds.  And our games definitely go faster.

By capping turn-2 fleets at 300 points (100 points in squadrons), it also means even if a fleet gets crushed in the opener the other fleets can't get too much bigger which helps combat the "snowball" effect.  And by taking away the base assault option on turn 1, we've explored more of the map and played a greater variety of objectives.  So far I believe the changes have made the experience more enjoyable for everyone.

The "unlocking" mechanic has proven a fun twist.  Initially I had come up with the idea because the Fighter Squadron I packs were out of stock.  Now, however, I could see applying the same rule to ships.  Having a limited number of ship types available on turn 1 and then opening up more options as the campaign goes on could be quite thematic, and would be a good incentive to bank points in order to save up for something really big.

With regards to limiting back-to-back replays, I completely understand where you're coming from.  I wanted to do this for my first campaign but the other players voted it down (and I can see why as it really hinders your overall team strategy).  One option is to limit rematches to a total of 2 games in a row after which you have to play against someone else, then it resets and you can play anyone again.  That being said, I think it's actually more impactful to take away turn-1 base assaults, remove the special assaults from the campaign, and start with smaller fleets.

By beginning with less than 400 points it accomplishes 2 things:

1.  It gets your players out of their 400-point tournament mindsets and away from the current competitive "meta".

2.  It gives you more room to grow your fleets and radically change them as the campaign progresses.

Starting smaller makes the "shopping" phase of the campaign a lot more fun and suspenseful.  We usually play once a month so a lot of thought goes into predicting what the enemy will bring to the table and how best to counter it.  When you have 200-250 points of open space in a fleet, it makes it far less obvious as to what your opponents will do from turn-to-turn.

For example, for my 300-point campaign I took Vader with an ISD-II, Interdictor and Gozanti on turn 1.  For squadrons I had a measly TIE Fighter and Advanced.  With 200 points of open space and 80 points to spend after turn 1, I could've done a lot of different things.  Go big on squadrons and turn it into a bomber force?  Take a flak boat Raider + some anti-squadron aces?  Or maybe even an Arquitens or decked out Gladiator to leverage Vader?  Each option radically changes the way my fleet would end up playing.  I feel you don't get that same transformation when you start at 400 and can only go up to 500.  There's just not enough room to make such dramatic changes to your fleet. 

By the way, for our 250-point campaign you can be at 300 points on turn 2, 350 on turn 3, and then up to 400 on turns 4+.  Rebuilt fleets get 250 points on turn 2, and 300 on turns 3+.  You can do the same kind of tiered structure with 300 point fleets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

I've heard that one, but controlling matchups and such is a huge part of the tactical fun of CC. Sometimes you face a superior force and have to run. 

If you don't like the idea of thematic battles like this just play a 3 round round robin tournament with increasing fleet size. Its not a bad thing, but if you are doing it for balance reasons I feel it is an attempt to balance the "human" element of the game at the expense of the strategy and theme of the campaign.

The main reason we did it is because 2 of us would just keep playing each other each round as we are the stronger players and it would just make thing stale for us. for our first CC we wanted to have fun more then anything else. which is a good thing considering how many rules we have gotten wrong ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the campaign is unbalanced towards one faction or the other, but I do think the snowball effect is a very real problem. I think the fleet scrapping and player substitution mechanics were very poorly implemented and make it impossible for someone to comeback after two consecutive bad beats. Players are too harshly penalized for resetting their fleet, losing a cp, all uniques, restricted to 1 upgrade per and having to start at 400 is just so harsh, it causes campaigns that get off to a rough start to basically not matter anymore in he mid-stages.

I would personally change the rules so that each team gets one 0 cp fleet reset, and whenever you reset you can spend fleet points up to the smallest fleet value on the opposing team OR you can use the resources you would have gained that round to upgrade your new fleet, and the one-per-ship upgrade rule does not apply.

I would apply the same changes to scrapping a fleet after a player substitution, but I would also allow uniques from the scrapped list to be made available to the incoming player but no one else on the team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tvboy said:

I don't think the campaign is unbalanced towards one faction or the other, but I do think the snowball effect is a very real problem. I think the fleet scrapping and player substitution mechanics were very poorly implemented and make it impossible for someone to comeback after two consecutive bad beats. Players are too harshly penalized for resetting their fleet, losing a cp, all uniques, restricted to 1 upgrade per and having to start at 400 is just so harsh, it causes campaigns that get off to a rough start to basically not matter anymore in he mid-stages.

I would personally change the rules so that each team gets one 0 cp fleet reset, and whenever you reset you can spend fleet points up to the smallest fleet value on the opposing team OR you can use the resources you would have gained that round to upgrade your new fleet, and the one-per-ship upgrade rule does not apply.

I would apply the same changes to scrapping a fleet after a player substitution, but I would also allow uniques from the scrapped list to be made available to the incoming player but no one else on the team.

 

I tend to agree. There has to be some penalty for having to scrap a fleet, otherwise it would be too easy to abuse. Fleets not working? Save your resources, then just recklessly throw them at you enemy to try and cost them as much as possible, then scrap it and rebuild with a free 400 points + your banked resources to upgrade it right to 500!

But, it feels too harsh IMO. Losing a CP and all uniques, fine. But you shouldn't have to forfeit all your resource income as well. 

For example in our game, Rebels just had a bad loss in a Show of Force so the Empire gains 120 resources + the normal resources from bases. This lets both Empire fleets go to 500 with like 50 points to spare each, so with that and their 4 repair yards they are basically immune to scars or ship losses at this point. The fleet that lost the Show of Force was at ~430 or so and now has to spend almost all of its resources on refit leaving only enough left to get to maybe 450 strength with nothing banked. At this point it is going to be really difficult for them to catch up. Our only option I think is to take the next game with the intent of just running away and hyperspacing out at round 4 without taking single casualty if possible. Which REALLY sucks for both players because it means you waste a whole session to do...nothing. But the alternative is to take an inferior fleet into battle and trying to win knowing that you're just going to lose more ships and spend more resources. 

 

Edited by SQUIDwarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SQUIDwarrior said:

For example in our game, Rebels just had a bad loss in a Show of Force so the Empire gains 120 resources + the normal resources from bases. This lets both Empire fleets go to 500 with like 50 points to spare each, so with that and their 4 repair yards they are basically immune to scars or ship losses at this point. 

I think Show of Force is the real culprit here.  As the Imperial Grand Admiral in my first campaign, I definitely abused Show of Force because... why not?  It was a no brainer to add an extra 120 resources to your team each turn and possibly gain initiative in the process (0 CPs from a SoF victory).  This allows you to pivot from a big money grab on turn 1 to launch a pair of base assaults with massive fleets on turns 2-3.

For my second campaign – again playing as the Imperial GA – I've removed both special assaults (and prohibited turn 1 base attacks).  This has made the campaign much tighter.  In addition, I put 50-point spending caps on fleets between turns.  Therefore, even if a player's fleet gets wrecked and they have to spend most of their refit/resources on repairs, they should still have around 20-30 points to spend on new stuff and be only around 25 points behind (or they can leave a ship or some squadrons scarred and spend their full 50 points).  Cautious play should allow them to stay competitive and catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to set up another campaign with my group starting out at 200pts or so. I've thought of using some of the rules above along with doing the special assaults differently as in using a small part of your fleet. At least to me it seems more thematic to send a task force to get supplies than a whole fleet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 3:55 AM, X Wing Nut said:

we have 6 players in ours and we added a rule you don't play the same player again until you have played all other players. anyone else done this?

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

edit:  Aaaaaand I realized just after posting that I misread your house rule.  Somebody else had proposed "you can't play the same opponent two rounds in a row," which is what I read this as.  Sorry.

I still disagree with the house rule, but for exactly the same reason @BrobaFett pointed out, so no need to rehash it.

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

Somebody proposed this early on in CC.  My issue with it is that I think it gives too great an advantage to whoever is behind on CP, because they pick all of the matchups in 3v3 (obviously the matchups in a 2v2 just alternate every round).

Teams are A, B, C vs 1, 2, 3.

Round 1:

  Av1
  Bv2
  Cv3

Round 2:

    EITHER

  Av2  #CP trailer picks who A plays.
  Bv3  #Mandatory, because C has already played 3
  Cv1  #only matchup left

    OR

  Av3  #CP trailer picks who A plays.
  Bv1  #Mandatory, because B has already played 2
  Cv2  #only matchup leftWhatever choice is made for the first matchup completely determines the other two, removing any agency from the other team during the strategy phase.

Edited by Ardaedhel
I read gud

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.


×
×
  • Create New...