I loved creating missions in X-Wing back in the day. It wasn't too hard to balance it there, because you didn't have to worry about it being fair to the computer...

But would there be interest in a series of missions that was based more on a narrative, but part of that meant that one side would be weaker. Clearly this wouldn't be done for competitive gaming, it would be more akin to a Role-playing game, with the "game master" running the Imp's or Reb's, knowing full well the deck is stacked against them, but wanting give the best fight they can.

If there was a demand for such a thing, perhaps a branching campaign, that's something I'd consider doing and publishing. But if no one would like it, then I don't think I'd bother.

yeah,
I think most people want to have a chance to win.

The Official Campaigns so far have been balanced, probably because this game isn't really a roleplaying adventure ruleset!? and both players so far have been viewed as players not advanced NPCs!

​But writing a campaign does sound cool.
Biased Squadrons and Biased Goals could still appeal.

And Campaign text can reinforce the idea that reinforcements bring squadrons back up strength before facing the next challenge / wave.

Panic...

I would be interested, as long as there is still a chance (even if less than 50/50) that the player side could win. Winning that kind of scenario would be very rewarding to a player.

And yes, I think a strong narrative greatly enhances this game. Just make sure that you make it explicit in your scenario/campaign write-up that the rules are intentionally biased in favour one party.

I would be interested, as long as there is still a chance (even if less than 50/50) that the player side could win.

Yeah, first rule of GM'ing a RPG is don't make it too easy, if it's too easy there's no sense of accomplishment in winning, same would go here.

It would be more like mission objectives slanted in one sides favor, or perhaps a 110 point list vs a 95 point one. Nothing drastic like "Wedge, Porkins, Wes and Luke vs 2 Academy pilots"

Winning that kind of scenario would be very rewarding to a player.

I think there's a place for that even without a narrative, playing a mission with a handicap just to see how well you do when the odds are stacked against you.

Just make sure that you make it explicit in your scenario/campaign write-up that the rules are intentionally biased in favour one party.

Yes I'd make sure it was quite clear up front.

I think this is a great idea. Starting as underdog/topdog feels so refreshingly different to normal all-is-fair game.

I think this would be an interesting idea.. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

I have some thoughts on this, but I'll provide a bit of my background for context.

I've been playing X-Wing since it dropped, though not regularly and certainly not competitively.

Also, I have about two decades of experience playing other miniatures wargames.

The current trend with a lot of games is geared towards a "tournament" format, with balanced (even mirrored) terrain and equivalent forces. Clearly this doesn't reflect any kind of warfare in history - it's a lot closer to a sporting match in structure.

Until recently our local meta has been playing X-Wing with the "standard" format - 3x3 table, 6 asteroids, equal points. It's the same mindset in Warmachine/Hordes - players get stuck in the paradigm of this being the only way to play.

But it's not. Many times my friends and I have played games of 40k or Epic 40k with varied missions - unequal forces, specific mission objectives, different deployment zones - all combining to create a narrative gaming experience.
I love this kind of game - and it suits Star Wars just as well as any other game. Drama and story are created though adversity - nobody wants to watch a movie where the heroes are evenly matched against their opponents.
We've just started using some of the Missions that FFG include in the basic game and expansions, and they really change the game experience. They force you to try different builds, different tactics. We'll definitely be playing more of these and building mini-campaigns for our local club.

So OP, I would absolutely play narrative, uneven force missions with varied objectives.
But it's still a game, and so all the players are there to have FUN. This means that your mission design needs to have achievable objectives for both sides. They don't have to be mirrored objectives though (Imps have to kill "ship", rebs have to keep "ship" alive), with careful design the objectives can be more or less unrelated to each other.

Bottom line, TL;DR, make some cool asymmetrical missions, but try to design them so everyone has a chance of victory.
Can't wait to see what you come up with

Thanks for the feedback.

I have an idea I'm working on now. It will be 6 semi-mirrored missions following the same basic storyline, a Rebel story and a Imperial story, so 12 total missions. The two sets wont always have the same objectives but the idea will be the same. Like blowing up cargo containers vs spy satellites.

Are you thinking like a Kobayashi Maru style mission, where the enemy escalate until you are destroyed and you get points for each wave you survive?

I think if you design the scenario right, people would get behind it.

Not exactly. More like if you normally have a 50-50 chance of winning, in these missions it might be closer to 60-40. It's hard to come up with a narrative that is completely balanced. So instead go into it knowing one side will have an advantage for the sake of the story.