Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Tokra said:

[...]

One idea about the skilled Spacer token (maybe to strong). How about a change that you can just remove one objective from the 3, instead of replace it? It would make the Skilled Spacer a really powerful token for normal defenses.
With Spynet i would even go to 3 token per planet.  Or even only one token, but you can redeploy your whole fleet, and not just one ship or two squadrons.

Skilled Spacers: I think this would still be a weak strategic effect. First, it merely helps the defender. Second, as opposing GA I would merely declare Base Assaults, Special Assaults or assaults on planets that give no option considering objectives (like Sileria, Raider's Point etc.). There I don't have to pick from the objectives of the defender and his skilled spacers become useless. Hence, my proposal for the Diplomats: The defender (!) can remove up to two objectives from the battle (maybe three would be better because of Plympto). Even green ones can be removed (but no Special Assaults). You have to add at least a number of normal objectives (not of the same colour) that is equal to the removed number of objectives minus one. The attacker can cancel the use of one diplomat token, if he has one himself. Here the opposing GA cannot circumvent the strategy token. Of course I don't care, if this is the effect of the diplomats or the skilled spacers. However, if it is the effect of the skilled spacers, we are still in need of an effect for diplomats :)

Spynet: Redeploying your entire fleet is tantamount to deploying your entire fleet after the opponent - which seems to me to have nearly the complete benefit of a Solar Corona. I consider that to be a bit strong. But I am not unhappy with handing out three tokens per planet.

11 hours ago, Dr alex said:

[...]

I’m easy with which side I’m on, I’m actually usually available from 2000 GMT not 2100 GMT.

Sorry, I had already translated it to GMT+1 (my time zone) in my head.

 

@BrobaFett: I had a really boring colloquium yesterday, so I used the time to think about the terminal death problem you mentioned. I have to say I have not found any solution I consider to be working. I pondered the following three:

  • A unit that has been destroyed thrice is terminally out of the campaign (requires additional bookkeeping and might still be to radical)
  • A repaired unit is not part of the fleet in the game round after it is repaired (this would at least give people to think, if they really want to repair; however, I believe this might unbalance the game too much)
  • Damage stays even, if a unit is unscarred (a squad loses permanently one hull point, ships permanently one defense token, if destroyed; unscarring simply removes the immediate thread of terminal death; what I don't like here, is that it is a bigger disadvantage for imps with their low hull squads)

Has someone else an idea?

 

Special assaults: I thought a lot about them. And they are a problem. They easily catapult a team to maximum fleet points - which is boring, because it shortens the part of the campaign, where a fleets develop. And in case of the imperial one, they are close to be in favor of the attacker.

What about the following approach: Let's use them as a comeback option, if the campaign gets unbalanced. They can merely be declared by a team who's total fleet points are at least 75 points (maybe 100?) less than the opposing side (scarred units count half, excluding upgrades). Now, all that we need is a good chance of success for both assaults. We already have it with the imperial one. Maybe, we can tweak the rebel one for the same effect: The second player gains one victory token for each ship (not squadron) with an objective token in the first players deployment zone (partial overlapping is enough). The first player gets one victory token for each unit with an objective token that is NOT in his deployment zone (including destroyed or retreated units).

With these rules they cannot be used to early max out fleets, but they are a nice comeback for a team that is on the losing side of the campaign.

 

Sorry, to all, if I start to monopolize this discussion. As I said, I am a house ruling maniac. If you get annoyed by it, simply write," f**k off, Veggie, let us play RAW!" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

 

I have to say I have not found any solution I consider to be working. I pondered the following three:

  • A unit that has been destroyed thrice is terminally out of the campaign (requires additional bookkeeping and might still be to radical)
  • A repaired unit is not part of the fleet in the game round after it is repaired (this would at least give people to think, if they really want to repair; however, I believe this might unbalance the game too much)
  • Damage stays even, if a unit is unscarred (a squad loses permanently one hull point, ships permanently one defense token, if destroyed; unscarring simply removes the immediate thread of terminal death; what I don't like here, is that it is a bigger disadvantage for imps with their low hull squads)

Has someone else an idea?

A unit that has been destroyed thrice is terminally out of the campaign (requires additional bookkeeping and might still be to radical):

This could work, but require some tracking. The drawback is, that it could kill some fleets near the end of the campaign, and cause a snowball effect. For example, having to repair an ISD three times is already really hard. But losing it after the 3rd time could totally rip the fleet.

 

A repaired unit is not part of the fleet in the game round after it is repaired :

No way. This would kill all big ships. It is already hard enough to repair a big ship. But not allowed to use it on the next round is an auto loss. Not repairing it is also no good idea. And what happend if someone lost everything in one round. He would not be able to field anything usefull in the next round. he could as well already make a new fleet and burn this one in the match.

 

Damage stays even, if a unit is unscarred (a squad loses permanently one hull point, ships permanently one defense token, if destroyed; unscarring simply removes the immediate thread of terminal death; what I don't like here, is that it is a bigger disadvantage for imps with their low hull squads):

The same again, it is ok when the campaign is not running to long. But this will be a snowball effect for the team that is already behind. Especially for squadrons. You WILL loose them. And if you would permanent lose one hull each time, there would be no reason for unique squadrons at some point. Especially the Imperial aces would suddenly be useless. Everyone would just swarm with non uniques, and make sure the unique squadrons are dying each match for sure.

 

The repair system is already hard for the team who is behind. Making it even harder only split the teams way more. Someone who has to spend all his points for repair and suddenly has to buy them all new, is in the disadvantage for the whole campaign. And dont forget, you just cannot scrap a ship and buy a new one (buying a new ISD for 120 instead of repairing one for 60). It could work with smaller ships (as long as you have enough free points), but not with the big ones.

I can understand that the repair of the squadrons is to easy. My suggestion would be: Repair cost for unique squadrons is the same as the cost (instead of half).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walls of text killed the chatter haha.

 

So who is on which side?

@GhostofNobodyInParticular

@Dr alex

@Green Knight

@BrobaFett

@Tokra

@Darth Veggie

 

Gk, Veggie, and myself expressed desire to be Imperials. Is that balanced? Does someone need to swap?

 

In regards to house rules:

-Gentlemans agreement on flotillas. Don't spam them.

-No special assaults or base assaults r1.

-Something for Special assaults? Maybe: objectives dont count toward victory score. Imo this is what makes the imperials have a good chance to get some resources out of the rebel one and also makes it almost impossible fot rebs to get some out of the Imp one too. Maybe this is a simple elegant fix?

-something for useless tokens? Skilled spacers and diplomats. Maybe remove an obj for skilled spacers, maybe block any assault with diplomata, can't be used on diplomat planets? Gives you a way to protect a high value planet, forcing them to take away diplomats first?

 

Maybe that is enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the special assault fix, but maybe I'm just slow.

An additional option is to disallow base/outpost building after special assault.

But yeah, this is more like it :)

Alternate use for skilled spacer: grants a veteran token for 1 battle.

Diplomats: I'm ok with this. If it should prove unbalanced in play we're all gentlemen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

I don't understand the special assault fix, but maybe I'm just slow.

I dont know if it works, was just thinking that the vic points from killing stations and reb ships get out of hand in the special assaults. There is a reason why blockade run isnt a great objective. Too often you split it on points. 

But i don't know, maybr just taking the 80 bonus points from show of force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SUMMARY

Armada rules
Gentleman's agreement to avoid max skew list, including but not limited to, flotilla spam and excessive use of unique squadrons.

CC rules
Diplomat: Block any assault, except on a planet with the Diplomat resource.
Skilled Spacers: Remove 1 objective from the 2nd player's suite (multiple spacers can't be used on the same battle) OR grant a veteran token to any ship or unique squadron (can't already have a vet token).
Special Assault: No building base/outpost after a special assault.

Re. SoF I know the Imps have the potential to take out both stations and the win, for a good chunk of resources, but I'm OK with that. It's a way for the Imp team to harvest much-needed resources early on or to try to come back from the underdog position. If we use the "no bases building" option, there is also an opportunity cost for taking a special assault. I've seen Imps win more often than not, but they usually bleed to do so. In all fairly balanced.

More problematic is Hyperlane Raid. I haven't played it as many times, but it is, I think, much harder to take 1 token from a mix of ISD and Gozanti than do the Show of Force. Sometimes the Empire wins, for 40 resources. Sometimes the Rebels win, for 60-80 resources. I've never seen them bag 120. So maybe this objective could use some work? Maybe 2 bonus gozanti or something (or a medium base ship even) that just lumber forward for 6 rounds, each having 1 token? It would make it similar to SoF, but with a twist.

Sides
Can ppl chime in with wishes/suggestions?

Broba already did.

Edited by Green Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m remarkably easy with everything. I’ve not done CC before so am happy to go with whatever house rules people think are intelligent. I’d rather avoid house rules for actual Armada as I’ll get confused.

I’m happy with Rebels, I’m ok with being grand admiral but my team mates might prefer it if someone who actually knows what they are doing does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Green Knight said:

SUMMARY

Armada rules
Gentleman's agreement to avoid max skew list, including but not limited to, flotilla spam and excessive use of unique squadrons.

CC rules
Diplomat: Block any assault, except on a planet with the Diplomat resource.
Skilled Spacers: Remove 1 objective from the 2nd player's suite (multiple spacers can't be used on the same battle) OR grant a veteran token to any ship or unique squadron (can't already have a vet token).
Special Assault: No building base/outpost after a special assault.

Re. SoF I know the Imps have the potential to take out both stations and the win, for a good chunk of resources, but I'm OK with that. It's a way for the Imp team to harvest much-needed resources early on or to try to come back from the underdog position. If we use the "no bases building" option, there is also an opportunity cost for taking a special assault. I've seen Imps win more often than not, but they usually bleed to do so. In all fairly balanced.

More problematic is Hyperlane Raid. I haven't played it as many times, but it is, I think, much harder to take 1 token from a mix of ISD and Gozanti than do the Show of Force. Sometimes the Empire wins, for 40 resources. Sometimes the Rebels win, for 60-80 resources. I've never seen them bag 120. So maybe this objective could use some work? Maybe 2 bonus gozanti or something (or a medium base ship even) that just lumber forward for 6 rounds, each having 1 token? It would make it similar to SoF, but with a twist.

Sides
Can ppl chime in with wishes/suggestions?

Broba already did.

Sorry, but I still need to utter my concerns.

EVERY single game I have seen, heard of, or even played started with the same boring selection of planets: Corellia, Sabhering, Nubia, Selonia, Vagran, and Xyquine. Why? Because they harbour the repair yards. These planets give its team an advantage of 15 resources for repairs, which allows to unscar 30 fleet points. The planets itself have an average resource value of close to 14 (!) points. This is the base line all other strategic planetes need to be measured against.

Spynet (average resource value of close to merely 4): Because Tokra's (or mine) proposal have been ignored, we are here at RAW, right? With RAW spynets are taken, but, of course, merely after the repair yards.

Diplomats (average resource value of merely 6): I am not sure whether I understand the proposed rule correctly: Is is possible to protect thereby one planet (that is not a diplomat planet) or does it mean the opposing team cannot declare any assault apart from a base assault against a diplomat planet (maybe including no special assault)? If the first, I would merely take the diplomats in order to protect a planet...with repair yards. But most likely I would not take them at all, but go for spynets. If it means the latter, ****, are they strong now! :) But I fear too strong. Because now base assault on diplomats have to be declared all the time, if merely one team takes one: Even if the one team loses the diplomat planet, now the other team has it, which translates to the fact that now the original team has to fight for the diplomat planet, and so on and so on.

Skilled Spacers (average resource value of 9 - but admittedly some really high ones among them): The first ability I think that is a toothless tiger. It is so easy to cirumvent by declaring assaults on: Sileria, Forvand, Plympto, Raider's Point, Centerpoint, or Crash's Drift with their green campaign objectives - which are in general weaker than the the better ordinary ones and less tailored to the defender's fleet. The second ability, apart from copying a mechanism that is already in the game, translates its value in something like two veteran captains on one and the same ship. That is roughly something like a Wulf Yularen - 7 fleet points. The repair yards (15 points for repairs) still seem to be much more worthwile.

Opportunity cost for Special Assaults: I like the general approach, but I think it does still not do what it is meant to do. A victory in a Show of Force translates in average to instant 80+ points for the winning team - and is easier than an ordinary victory. An ordinary victory translates to 25 points (+ planet value) from the next round on for the base built minus instant 15 for building the base. That means it takes something like 4 rounds to pay off compared to the SoF. Even with the rules proposed at the moment we will see what we have seen all the time: Special assaults in round 2 or 3 in order to early max out fleets. From then on the soon non changing (maxed out) fleets play against each other round after round. Another special assault comes, if a team falls back and needs the points.

Hyperlane Raids: I really like the idea of adding some "transporters". I assume they cannot change course or speed in order to lurk in the defenders deployment zone, and they cannot attack. But some questions I have: Do they increase deployment or activation for the defender? If they do, that seems to me to make Hyperlane Raid worse for the attacker compared to Show of Force. Otherwise, great house rule! Then we simply need the precise wording for it.

 

Rebel Grand Admiral

As far as I can see this time grand admirals are elected by stepping earlier backwards than the other team members. @Dr alex has already taken a tiny step back. I like to do that as well. @Tokra do you mind to be our GA?

 

Edited by Darth Veggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Veggie said:

Rebel Grand Admiral

As far as I can see this time grand admirals are elected by stepping earlier backwards than the other team members. @Dr alex has already taken a tiny step back. I like to do that as well. @Tokra do you mind to be our GA?

 

I can try it. But i am GA on our local CC campaign as well. I only hope i do not mix these two up :P

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...