I decided to pull out some math to figure out where each of the Wave 1 ships rates. Most of these figures have been scaled to 100 points. So, for example, the Victory I has a Squadron Rating/100 of 4.1, which means that 100 points worth of Victories (about 1.4 ships) would be able to command 4.1 squadrons per turn (excluding the use of command tokens). Thus, it is easier to compare ships of wildly different point costs. I have also placed each of these ships into tiers, relative to the other Wave 1 ships. If you want to skip the math and get straight to the results, see the second post.

I think that many of these formulas could be improved. So, take this as a starting-point to what could eventually become Armada Sabermetrics. I will note some of my misgivings under each formula. Also, note that several of these ratings could skewed significantly by upgrades. For example, ships that can take Enhanced Armament can become even more efficient long-range attackers. I have not attempted to account for this.

*****BIG UPDATE: I have done some extensive refiguring of the numbers. First of all, I have scaled all numbers where 100 is average. Any numbers above 100 represent how much better than average they are. For example, a Victory I has a 131 Squadron Rating/100+, which means that 100 points worth of Victory I Star Destroyers is 31% better than average at giving Squadron commands. By contrast, a CR90A has a 72 Squadron Rating/100+, which means that 100 points worth of CR90As is 28% worse than average at giving Squadron commands. This should make it easier to see at a glance how good or how bad a given ship is, compared to the average.

Another big change that I have made is to divide Survivability into two stats. Survivability-Individual is how hard it is to kill one unit, and Survivability-Group is how hard it is to kill 100 points worth of that unit. Individual matters when it comes to certain objectives, such as Most Wanted. Group matters when it comes to tabling your opponent. Compare this to X-Wing: an individual TIE-Fighter has only 3 hit-points, so it is extremely fragile. However, a swarm of 7 TIE-Fighters has 21 hit-points, which is quite close to the average list. While it may be tough to keep one vital TIE alive (e.g. Howlrunner), a swarm of TIEs is fairly resilient.

Additional changes are noted under each heading.

The original numbers are available in a later post, in case you want to make comparisons.

Survivability-Individual+
Hull + Average Shield Facing + Engineering
***I increased the value of Engineering. Otherwise, the formula is unchanged.***

Top Tier
Victory (132)

High Moderate Tier
AF MkII (118)

Low Moderate Tier
Gladiator (91)
Nebulon B (89)

Bottom Tier
CR90 (70)

Survivability-Group+
(Hull + Average Shield Facing + Engineering) * (100/Point Cost)
***As above***

Top Tier
CR90 B (112)
Victory I (112)
Nebulon B Support (108)

Moderate Tier
AF MkII B (102)
Gladiator I (101)
CR90 A (99)
Victory II (96)
Nebulon B Escort (96)

Bottom Tier
Gladiator II (91)
AF MKII A (90)

Squadron Rating/100+
Squadron Rating * (100/Point Cost)

***This does not account for the fact that 4 cheap ships can command 4 extra squadrons through command tokens, while 2 expensive ships can only command 2 extra squadrons through command tokens. I'm trying to decide how to account for this.***

Top Tier
AF MkII B (133)
Victory I (131)

Moderate Tier
Gladiator I (114)
Victory II (112)
Nebulon B Escort (112)
Gladiator II (103)

Bottom Tier
CR90 B (82)
AF MkII A (79)
CR90 A (72)
Nebulon B Support (62)

Anti-Fighter/100+
Total Anti-Fighter Dice * (100/Point Cost)
***I assume that the CR90A has only one anti-fighter die, but the pictures are contradictory. It would ungodly-powerful against fighters with two dice. Also, I do not account for the fact that cheap ships could use more concentrate fighter tokens.***

Top Tier
Nebulon B Escort (162)
Gladiator II (149)

Moderate Tier
CR90 B (118)
AF MkII A (114)
CR90 A (105)

Bottom Tier
Nebulon B Support (90)
Gladiator I (82)
AF MkII B (64)
Victory I (63)
Victory II (54)

Expected Hits/Accuracy/Critical Effects of Best Attack (Long)/100+
((Red Dice Front + Red Dice Side) * 0.75) * (100/Point Cost)
((Red Dice Front + Red Dice Side) * 0.125) * (100/Point Cost)
(((0.25 * Red Dice Front) - (0.25 ^ Red Dice Front)) + ((0.25 * Red Dice Side) - (0.25 ^ Red Dice Side))) * (100/Point Cost)
***Rather than inundating you with tons of ratings, I tried to kill a few birds with one stone. I chose the best case scenario (enemy in both front and side arc), and I scaled it according to expected hits (0.75 per red die, 0.75 per blue die, 1.0 per black die) and accuracy (0.125 per red die, 0.25 per blue die). As above, I do not account for the fact that small ships can use more concentrated fire tokens.***

***I am pretty sure that I have totally screwed up the third formula. I was a liberal arts major, and I cannot promise that I know what I am doing when it comes to probability. What it is supposed to do: add the percent chance of a crit from the front arc to the percent chance of a crit from the side arc, and then adjust for point cost. If someone could toss me the correct formula, I would appreciate it.***

Top Tier
Nebulon B Support (140 Hits/140 Accuracy/126 Crits?)
Nebulon B Escort (125 Hits/125 Accuracy/113 Crits?)
AF Mk II B (124 Hits/124 Accuracy/142 Crits?)
Victory I (122 Hits/122 Accuracy/121 Crits?)
CR90 A (122 Hits/122 Accuracy/87 Crits?)

Moderate Tier
AF MkII A (110 Hits/110 Accuracy/127 Crits?)
Victory II (105 Hits/105 Accuracy/121 Crits?)

Bottom Tier
Gladiator II (87 Hits/87 Accuracy/62 Crits?)
Gladiator I (64 Hits/64 Accuracy/-88 Crits???)

Non-Tier
CR90 B (No long-range attacks at all)

Expected Hits/Accuracy/Critical Effects of Best Attack (Medium)/100+
***As above***

Top Tier
CR90 B (150 Hits/294 Accuracy/151 Crits?)
CR90 A (133 Hits/143 Accuracy/133 Crits?)
Victory II (124 Hits/142 Accuracy/132 Crits?)
Nebulon B Support (115 Hits/90 Accuracy/115 Crits?)

Moderate Tier
Nebulon B Escort (102 Hits/80 Accuracy/103 Crits?)
AF Mk II A (101 Hits/92 Accuracy/107 Crits?)
AF Mk II B (97 Hits/72 Accuracy/100 Crits?)
Victory I (80 Hits/39 Accuracy/80 Crits?)

Bottom Tier
Gladiator II (57 Hits/28 Accuracy/35 Crits?)
Gladiator I (42 Hits/20 Accuracy/-50 Crits???)

Expected Hits/Accuracy/Critical Effects of Best Attack (Short)/100+
***As above***

Top Tier
Gladiator I (151 Hits/20 Accuracy/133 Crits?)
Gladiator II (132 Hits/28 Accuracy/120 Crits?)
Victory I (120 Hits/39 Accuracy/115 Crits?)

High-Moderate Tier
CR90 B (109 Hits/294 Accuracy/113 Crits?)
CR90 A (96 Hits/143 Accuracy/100 Crits?)

Low-Moderate Tier
Victory II (90 Hits/142 Accuracy/99 Crits?)
Nebulon B Support (83 Hits/90 Accuracy/86 Crits?)

Bottom Tier
Nebulon B Escort (74 Hits/80 Accuracy/77 Crits?)
AF MkII A (73 Hits/92 Accuracy/80 Crits?)
AF MkII B (71 Hits/72 Accuracy/75 Crits?)

Maneuverability+
Maximum Speed + Average Number of Clicks + (4 - Command)
***New and improved with real numbers!***

Top Tier
CR90 (157)

High-Moderate Tier
Gladiator (102)
Nebulon B (102)

Low-Moderate Tier
AF MkII (83)

Bottom Tier
Victory (55)

CR90 Corvette A

Survivability-Individual: 70
Survivability-Group: 99
Squadron: 72
Anti-Fighter: 105
Long-Range Attack (Hits/Accuracy/Critical Effects): 122/122/87?
Medium-Range Attack: 133/143/133?
Short-Range Attack: 96/143/100?
Maneuverability: 157

CR90 Corvette B

Survivability-Individual: 70
Survivability-Group: 112
Squadron: 82
Anti-Fighter: 118
Long-Range Attack: n/a
Medium-Range Attack: 150/294/151?
Short-Range Attack: 109/294/113?
Maneuverability: 157

Nebulon B Escort Frigate

Survivability-Individual: 89
Survivability-Group: 96
Squadron: 112
Anti-Fighter: 162
Long-Range Attack: 125/125/113?
Medium-Range Attack: 102/80/103?
Short-Range Attack: 74/80/77?
Maneuverability: 102

Nebulon B Support Frigate

Survivability-Individual: 89
Survivability-Group: 108
Squadron: 62
Anti-Fighter: 90
Long-Range Attack: 140/140/126?
Medium-Range Attack: 115/90/115?
Short-Range Attack: 83/90/86?
Maneuverability: 102

Assault Frigate Mark II A

Survivability-Individual: 118
Survivability-Group: 90
Squadron: 79
Anti-Fighter: 114
Long-Range Attack: 110/110/127?
Medium-Range Attack: 101/92/107?
Short-Range Attack: 73/92/80?
Maneuverability: 83

Assault Frigate Mark II B

Survivability-Individual: 118
Survivability-Group: 102
Squadron: 133
Anti-Fighter: 64
Long-Range Attack: 124/124/142?
Medium-Range Attack: 97/72/100?
Short-Range Attack: 71/72/75?
Maneuverability: 83

Gladiator II-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability-Individual: 91
Survivability-Group: 91
Squadron: 103
Anti-Fighter: 149
Long-Range Attack: 87/87/62?
Medium-Range Attack: 57/28/35?
Short-Range Attack: 132/28/120?
Maneuverability: 102

Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability-Individual: 91
Survivability-Group: 101
Squadron: 114
Anti-Fighter: 82
Long-Range Attack: 64/64/-88?
Medium-Range Attack: 42/20/-50?
Short-Range Attack: 151/20/133?
Maneuverability: 102

Victory II-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability-Individual: 132
Survivability-Group: 96
Squadron: 112
Anti-Fighter: 54
Long-Range Attack: 105/105/121?
Medium-Range Attack: 124/142/132?
Short-Range Attack: 90/142/99?
Maneuverability: 55

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability-Individual: 132
Survivability-Group: 112
Squadron: 131
Anti-Fighter: 63
Long-Range Attack: 122/122/140?
Medium-Range Attack: 80/39/80?
Short-Range Attack: 120/39/115?
Maneuverability: 55

Interesting thread! Like you, i'm a little unsure on factoring Engineering in on this. I think it's worth more than you've rated it, as a single turn can restore a shield etc...but it depends how often you execute the command. I'll give it some thought.

Defence tokens are ok atm. Until we get experience and see if one is legitimately better or weaker, counting them all as equal is fine, and since they all have the same amount it's not an issue.

So the Assault Frigate on paper looks kind of bad. It will be interesting to see if these match on-table performance.

Yes and no. These stats are a bit odd, in that they actually do not in any way track actual effectiveness between ships. What they track is cost effectiveness of the characteristic in question.

Add to this that the "survivability" stat for example is a bit misleading, as it's "survivability for the points" really. What this means is that 2 Corvettes may appear much better on paper than 1 upgraded AF. BUT....the 2 Corvettes may quite soon become 1 Corvette, versus 1 AF. And 1 Corvette, despite having higher "rankings" on this system, is a lot less effective than 1 AF.

Does that make sense at all?

Kudos on taking a stab at ranking the ships by stats.

For those wondering about the math vs how they will play out I would like to point out the maneuvering will play a big part and isnt accounted for with a hard number. I would propose that all numbers should an alternate value to account for that. I suggest weighting the values by 1 for poor, 1.1 for poor-moderate, 1.2 for moderate-good, and 1.3 for good. That adjustment would not be perfect but I think it would adjust the rankings enough for people to see that assault mk II is much better placed than it seems.

I would also like to see the categories expanded in respect to best facing and firepower. The numbers should be something like best arc firepower + supporting arc's firepower, both arcs shields + hull. The idea is to show what value this ship has in a closing engagement where your ships close in shoot and turn to use a different shield arc. Might want to think of this as the brawlers category.

One other comment. You should provide an adjusted firepower values for concentrate firepower command and token. Think of this as the alpha strike round of firepower. I would think this is where cheap ships will shine because each ship will be an additional command and token.

Looks like the vic 1 is a better ship for the points than I expected.

Thanks for this

Finally a math thread I can wrap my head around. Thank you for this!

I'm sadden to see that the Gladiator only got #1 in one area but i can also understand why lol

Finally a math thread I can wrap my head around. Thank you for this!

I'm sadden to see that the Gladiator only got #1 in one area but i can also understand why lol

I think that maneuvering if factored in would greatly improve the gladiators standing.

I have done a massive update of my numbers. Look at the top two posts for the new data. I have pasted the original posts below for posterity's sake.

Original posts:

Survivability/100

(Hull + Average Shield Facing + Engineering/2) * (100/Point Cost)
***I am the least sure about my formula here. Should I account for Engineering differently? Is there a way to account for the different defense tokens?***

Top Tier
CR90 B (17.3)
Victory I (17.1)
Nebulon B Support (16.2)

Moderate Tier
CR90 A (15.3)
AF MkII B (15.3)
Gladiator I (15.2)
Victory II (14.7)
Nebulon B Escort (14.5)

Bottom Tier
Gladiator II (13.7)
AF MKII A (13.6)

Squadron Rating/100

Squadron Rating * (100/Point Cost)

***This does not account for the fact that 4 cheap ships can command 4 extra squadrons through command tokens, while 2 expensive ships can only command 2 extra squadrons through command tokens. I'm trying to decide how to account for this.***

Top Tier
AF MkII B (4.2)
Victory I (4.1)

Moderate Tier
Gladiator I (3.6)
Victory II (3.5)
Nebulon B Escort (3.5)
Gladiator II (3.2)

Bottom Tier
CR90 B (2.6)
AF MkII A (2.5)
CR90 A (2.3)
Nebulon B Support (2.0)

Anti-Fighter/100

Total Anti-Fighter Dice * (100/Point Cost)
***I assume that the CR90A has only one anti-fighter die, but the pictures are contradictory. It would ungodly-powerful against fighters with two dice. Also, I do not account for the fact that cheap ships could use more concentrate fighter tokens.***

Top Tier
Nebulon B Escort (3.5)
Gladiator II (3.2)

Moderate Tier
CR90 B (2.6)
AF MkII A (2.5)
CR90 A (2.3)

Bottom Tier
Nebulon B Support (2.0)
Gladiator I (1.8)
AF MkII B (1.4)
Victory I (1.4)
Victory II (1.2)

Expected Hits of Best Attack (Long)/100

((Red Dice Front + Red Dice Side) * 0.75) * (100/Point Cost)

***Rather than inundating you with tons of ratings, I tried to kill a few birds with one stone. I chose the best case scenario (enemy in both front and side arc), and I scaled it according to expected hits (0.75 per red die, 0.75 per blue die, 1.0 per black die). I could also run the numbers for expected accuracy and percent-chance of a critical effect. Maybe there would even be a way to bake all of these into one big "attack effectiveness" rating. As above, I do not account for the fact that small ships can use more concentrated fire tokens.***

Top Tier
Nebulon B Support (5.9)
Nebulon B Escort (5.3)
AF Mk II B (5.2)
Victory I (5.1)
CR90 A (5.1)

Moderate Tier
AF MkII A (4.6)
Victory II (4.4)

Bottom Tier
Gladiator II (3.6)
Gladiator I (2.7)

Non-Tier
CR90 B (0)

Expected Hits of Best Attack (Medium)/100

((Red Dice Front + Red Dice Side + Blue Dice Front + Blue Dice Side) * 0.75) * (100/Point Cost)

Top Tier
CR90 B (9.6)
CR90 A (8.5)
Victory II (7.9)
Nebulon B Support (7.4)

Moderate Tier
Nebulon B Escort (6.6)
AF Mk II A (6.5)
AF Mk II B (6.3)
Victory I (5.1)

Bottom Tier
Gladiator II (3.6)
Gladiator I (2.7)

Expected Hits of Best Attack (Short)/100

(((Red Dice Front + Red Dice Side + Blue Dice Front + Blue Dice Side) * 0.75) + Black Dice Front + Black Dice Side) * (100/Point Cost)

Top Tier
Gladiator I (13.4!!!!)
Gladiator II (11.7)
Victory I (10.6)

High-Moderate Tier
CR90 B (9.6)
CR90 A (8.5)

Low-Moderate Tier
Victory II (7.9)
Nebulon B Support (7.4)

Bottom Tier
Nebulon B Escort (6.6)
AF MkII A (6.5)
AF MkII B (6.3)

Maneuverability

***Subjectively ranked according to Maximum Speed, Number of Clicks per Speed, and Command rating.***

Top Tier
CR90

High-Moderate Tier
Gladiator
Nebulon B

Low-Moderate Tier
AF MkII

Bottom Tier
Victory

CR90 Corvette A

Survivability: Moderate (#4)
Squadron: Poor (#9)
Anti-Fighter: Moderate (#5)
Long-Range Attack: Good (#4-TIE)
Medium-Range Attack: Good (#2)
Short-Range Attack: Good-Moderate (#5)
Maneuverability: Good

CR90 Corvette B

Survivability: Good (#1)
Squadron: Poor (#7)
Anti-Fighter: Moderate (#3)
Long-Range Attack: Non-Existent (#10)
Medium-Range Attack: Good (#1)
Short-Range Attack: Good-Moderate (#4)
Maneuverability: Good

Nebulon B Escort Frigate

Survivability: Moderate (#8)
Squadron: Moderate (#5)
Anti-Fighter: Good (#1)
Long-Range Attack: Good (#2)
Medium-Range Attack: Moderate (#5)
Short-Range Attack: Poor (#8)
Maneuverability: Good-Moderate

Nebulon B Support Frigate

Survivability: Good (#3)
Squadron: Poor (#10)
Anti-Fighter: Poor (#6)
Long-Range Attack: Good (#1)
Medium-Range Attack: Good (#4)
Short-Range Attack: Moderate-Poor (#7)
Maneuverability: Good-Moderate

Assault Frigate Mark II A

Survivability: Poor (#10)
Squadron: Poor (#8)
Anti-Fighter: Moderate (#4)
Long-Range Attack: Moderate (#6)
Medium-Range Attack: Moderate (#6)
Short-Range Attack: Poor (#9)
Maneuverability: Moderate-Poor

Assault Frigate Mark II B

Survivability: Moderate (#5)
Squadron: Good (#1)
Anti-Fighter: Poor(#8-TIE)
Long-Range Attack: Good (#3)
Medium-Range Attack: Moderate (#7)
Short-Range Attack: Poor (#10)
Maneuverability: Moderate-Poor

Gladiator II-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability: Poor (#9)
Squadron: Moderate (#6)
Anti-Fighter: Good (#2)
Long-Range Attack: Poor (#8)
Medium-Range Attack: Poor (#9)
Short-Range Attack: Good (#2)
Maneuverability: Good-Moderate

Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability: Moderate (#6)
Squadron: Moderate (#3)
Anti-Fighter: Poor (#7)
Long-Range Attack: Poor (#9)
Medium-Range Attack: Poor (#10)
Short-Range Attack: Great (#1)
Maneuverability: Good-Moderate

Victory II-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability: Moderate (#6)
Squadron: Moderate (#4)
Anti-Fighter: Poor (#10)
Long-Range Attack: Moderate (#7)
Medium-Range Attack: Good (#3)
Short-Range Attack: Moderate-Poor (#6)
Maneuverability: Poor

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer

Survivability: Good (#3)
Squadron: Good (#2)
Anti-Fighter: Poor (#8-TIE)
Long-Range Attack: Good (#4-TIE)
Medium-Range Attack: Moderate (#8)
Short-Range Attack: Good (#3)
Maneuverability: Poor

Great update. I much prefer the new formulae and format. Everything is basically in line with eyeballing it, so it "feels" right.

Individual Survivability was a great add too....it makes a big difference. As previously pointed out, ships like CR90's for example are very cost efficient for firepower, but that efficiency will degrade rapidly due to poor individual survivability. Tougher ships will stay combat effective for longer.

Really nice, thanks!

P.S....the Gladiator is such a thug of a ship, i love it

Could we perhaps rate it as

Hits (L/M/S)

L = Long Range

M = Medium Range

S = Short Range

Where the Medium value = Blue dice + Red Dice; Short value = Black + Blue + Red. This way you can see how the hits increase as you close range.

One could also integrate maneuverability into the Hits Assessment, as a speed 2 ship may never be able to get a speed 3 or 4 ship into short range... So maybe apply a modifier to the black dice based on ship and max speed (e.g. Vic would be 2 (speed) /4 (Max speed), Gladiator would be 3/4).

One could then weight the results to come up with an 'overall' hits number...

So the stats would be:

Survivability (per 100 pts)

Weighted Hits (per 100 pts)

Squadron (per 100 pts)

Anti-fighter (per 100 pts)

Personally, I am more concerned with survivability per point as opposed to individual ship, as I suspect critical effects rapidly degrade the combat effectiveness of individual ships... and the is one lucky role away.

I agreed with what others have said about manuvering. The assault mk II that has its target directly infront onlt has to turn to one side about 22 degrees or so to get two arcs firing at ome target. (cannot be sure without game) that turn could be as simple as one click on the template. The VSD on the other hand will have to turn in excess of 45 degrees as my rough guess. That will be very hard as they get very few clicks on the template. So far we have two kinds of fireing arc layouts. The pure X as I call it, this is found on the assault, gladiator, and neb b. Then we have the large forward arc ships like the cr90 and the VSD.

It starts getting extremely subjective if you begin weighting attack by range, level of manoeuvrability and firing arcs. Remember that these stats are an attempt to track one specific thing (points efficiency vs one stat), not an attempt to find the best ship at a given roll.

Once you move from objectivity to subjectivity (because everyone will have different views on how hard it will be for X to get to short range and double arc against Y....and it will be a totally different level of difficulty for X to do the same against Z, etc. Not to mention it doesn't factor in that Y which is faster might HAVE to be near X to get an objective....you see my point? ), this kind of maths becomes a lot less meaningful.

By all means add your own formulae and interpretation, but IMO leave the raw numbers alone so that others can add their own weighting in the way they choose, because people will never agree on how that weighting should be applied.

I don't know if this means anything at all - but I was curious and played a bit. I averaged Chemnitz' ship standings together for "best ship in a vacuum." (CR-90B and Gladiator II won) I have NO clue if that is a valid way to look at this information, but what was more interesting to me was then averaging all of the ratings of the Imperial and Alliance ships together by faction. It ended up being super super close. Someone who knows better could probably explain why what I was looking at is irrelevant, but I'm not really savvy with these things... :-)

I think my issue with the attack stat was that is was caculated off two arcs. Maybe it should be done for each arc. But by mixing two arcs you have to take into account how hard it would be to get both arcs on one target.

Survivability in particular seems like a stat where the nubmers don't tell the whole story. Average shield facing is useful to know, but not every side is equal. Due to the way the ships move and how their forward and side arcs have stronger weapons, the front and side arcs are going to be facing the enemy more often, and the rear arcs are going to be targeted very infrequently.

If you CAN target the rear arc, it will usually be a big deal, but the amount of time you'll actually be able to is likely to be minimal. I actually expect the single shield on the side arcs of the Nebulon B are going to be a massive weakness, since targeting a side arc will be much easier than the rear.

Unfortunately, I dont' really know of an objective way to incorporate this into the formula, because we'd have to make some very subjective guesses about the likelihood of each arc being fired upon. So I think it's best to keep the formulae as objective as possible, and just bear in mind that there are practical considerations that aren't easily quantified.

Survivability in particular seems like a stat where the nubmers don't tell the whole story. Average shield facing is useful to know, but not every side is equal. Due to the way the ships move and how their forward and side arcs have stronger weapons, the front and side arcs are going to be facing the enemy more often, and the rear arcs are going to be targeted very infrequently.

If you CAN target the rear arc, it will usually be a big deal, but the amount of time you'll actually be able to is likely to be minimal. I actually expect the single shield on the side arcs of the Nebulon B are going to be a massive weakness, since targeting a side arc will be much easier than the rear.

Unfortunately, I dont' really know of an objective way to incorporate this into the formula, because we'd have to make some very subjective guesses about the likelihood of each arc being fired upon. So I think it's best to keep the formulae as objective as possible, and just bear in mind that there are practical considerations that aren't easily quantified.

I think the best that can be reasonably done is to work up the scenario of a closing engagement where both fronts face each other and then one or both ships will turn their sides to the enemy. I'm not saying that will be incredibly accurate but it will be the most likely scenario which can also be easily have a bit of metrics done to it. Even a ship with excellent side arc firepower like the AFII isn't going to necessarily start the engagement using their side arc b/c a reasonable admiral will want to get the maximum odds of survival by taking at least some of the hits on the front shields.

The numbers provided so far feel right and I suspect a bit of the odd stuff can be attributed to things like defense tokens being different for some ships. I suspect that small ships like the corvette are going to basically depend upon using their defense tokens early an often to survive more than a turn of taking fire. If faced with a lot of accuracy that won't work, but when they get lucky and little to accuracy is rolled they will glide through intense amounts of firepower like a champ.