Good way to put it ficklegreendice. Now if only we could get some green long range dice for you.

And, I would agree FGD. However, that my examples are nebulous and squishy is part of my point. The "values" assigned are not (and probably can not ever) be know; thus they are subjective.

This is to say, Lyraeus might value 2 56 point ships of identical stats more than I value a single 88 point Demolisher; but there isn't likely to be some objective formula that tells us that one is better than the other in a factual way. So in certain sets of conditions: the two Gladiators will be better, and in some other Demolisher will be better. This is the nature of the entire game: everything is contingent on, literally, everything else.

This is the basis of my fundamental view of: options. The most flexible list is, to me, the "best" list in the most situations; and, accordingly, the player that plays better with the most flexible list should (theoretically) win most of his games.

The example of Demolisher, is a little unique, in that (I, and many, feel) it is so fundamentally useful/powerful that it more than pays for itself in opportunity costs in other ships. Perhaps most other examples don't quite hold up as well as this one...who knows for sure atm.

That said, I'm still not sure that I agree that

In the ultimate question of "more ships or more upgrades?" the answer is "the game supports either playstyle equally well."

Perhaps just dropping the final "equally well" would suffice for me.

I see this in similar light to no-squadron lists. I honestly feel that all-ship-no-upgrade lists are simply worse than either other option..and the full-squadron-well-equipped list has nearly insurmountable obstacles that can't effectively be overcome in equal-skill-level opponents.

Of course, all of this is subject to context: loading up cheap ships with full upgrades is most-likely a bad use of points; just like buying 67+ points of bombers.

Then again, this is just my views based on my understanding of game mechanics and relatively limited gameplay against varrying lists and skill-level opponents (a dozen games and change maybe?).

If we ever play on Vassal, I believe that we will have this war many many times over.

Perhaps just dropping the final "equally well" would suffice for me.

I see this in similar light to no-squadron lists. I honestly feel that all-ship-no-upgrade lists are simply worse than either other option..and the full-squadron-well-equipped list has nearly insurmountable obstacles that can't effectively be overcome in equal-skill-level opponents.

Of course, all of this is subject to context: loading up cheap ships with full upgrades is most-likely a bad use of points; just like buying 67+ points of bombers.

Then again, this is just my views based on my understanding of game mechanics and relatively limited gameplay against varrying lists and skill-level opponents (a dozen games and change maybe?).

it indeed depends on context

I'm also not a fan of pure ship spam, but I'd be lying if CR-90 spam wasn't terriying

bomber spam...yeah that basically needs to be against ship spam to be effective (if we're talking tie bomber; X-wings are pretty fine with whatever)