Essentially, the only change I would want to make is to tweak the number of points required to get to the more advanced missions, based on the total game counts we saw last time. If you look at it, the structure uses 3 game sizes:
Recon = Small = 400pts
Strategic = Medium = 800pts
Control = Large = 1200pts
Recon missions can be played for free, and grant "recon points."
Players must pay a certain amount of recon points to play Strategic missions, which grant "strategic points."
Likewise, players must pay strategic points to play control missions, which grant control points. the first player to have 3 control points is the winner.
Here's the catch; as originally written by Craig(
link here), you need 25 Strategic points to play one control mission. You can only earn a max of 13 Strategy points in a Strategic game (which assumes you table your opponent...more likely you are looking at about 7 or 8 strategy points). So, you are looking at a MINIMUM of 6 800 point games to just get a CHANCE of winning 3 control points. Based on what we saw last year, that is just too many games. My solution to this is to tweak the costs for the various missions, while leaving the rewards the same:
5 Recon Points are Required to play a Strategic Mission
8 Strategy Points are Required to Play a Control Mission