So one of the challenges of the game is playing the rock paper scissors of fighter bomber ship. Looking at damage efficiency, ships are more efficient at damaging ships than basic fighters. Bombers are more efficient damaging ships than ships. Fighters are able to beat bombers.

I've been trying to determine what a "balanced" list is. That is, what mix of fighters and bombers puts you on par with ships. Essentially, can I go squadron heavy, but not skew too far to fighters or bombers. Balance. I seek balance. Trial and error is one way, but due to so many variables requires a LOT of games. More than I can get in right now. So I thought I might try to use some math to point me in the correct direction.

I took my analysis of ship and squadron damage and somewhat arbitrarily decided that 0.080 damage per point was the balance point between fighters and squadron. So if I can build a set of squadrons that average out to this point, I will have a balanced set. Of course this would need to be modified by other constraints, such as how many squadron activations the ships have. But this will at least point the way. So the pairings:

TIE fighter/TIE Bomber: 2:1 ratio provides exactly 0.080

TIE adv/TIE Bomber: 4:3

TIE Int/TIE Bomber: 3:4

Y-wing/X-wing: 3:2

A-wing/B-wing: 5:1

X-wing/B-wing: 2:1

A-wing/Y-wing: 3:2

Obviously my .080 goal might be off. But you could set a different goal and run the numbers again. These ratios strike me as fighter heavy. I'd appreciate thoughts and suggestions for refinement.

The original offense numbers are in this thread: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189785-running-the-numbers-wave-2-offense/

I use a spreadsheet to generate a grid of efficiencies for how many of each ship in a pairing and what their efficiencies are. If there is high demand, I'll take a screen shot of whichever pairings people want.

B-Wings all the way ^_~

3 Blue dice, not heavy, yup does the job well.

There is no paper.

There are no scissors.

There is only rock. And by rock, I mean, T.I.E. LN .....

They move fast, are cheap and damage a ship 50% of the tme, not to shabby. If the enemy didn't bring squadrens, I plant my TIEs like a movable mine field.

Major Rhymer takes the Imperial Squadron suite and makes them all very lethal vs Ships. Are they as efficient as bombers...no but they still have their dog fighting punch while now also having good ship bombardments. I feel he balances out the Imperial Fighter suite just fine.

As for Rebels. I have less experience here. With the Rebel suite of squadrons being less dedicated to 1 combat roll. They seem better equipped to handle the Dog fighting and ship fighting.

I think Flight Controllers on TIE interceptors may be a waste, with howlrunner do you need to roll that many die? they already have swarm. For rebels flight controllers may be a bit more important as they are lacking the buffs the imperials receive. Its very true to "history". The Imperials relied on quantity of quality while the Rebellion relied on quality over quantity.

Flight controllers can take something like X-wings and really turn them on for dogfighting while still being good at making bombing runs.

I haven't spent a lot of time pouring over the S+V stuff just yet as I am trying to wrap my head around the new ships first. My initial thoughts are that the Imperials are getting some super aces (akin to wedge, and luke) while the rebels are getting some support aces (akin to howlrunner and rhymer). This should really help flush out squadrons so they can take on a larger battlefield roll.

I feel, as empire, that 25% dedicated bombers (Rhymer and a wingman), 25% flex (advance/Vader), and 50% superiority is the best.

This allows you to handle even 100% superiority lists while utilizing your ordnance, and decimate most other superiority-light lists quickly so that you can start lobbing blue dice at ships.

What is the purpose of your fighters?

Kill enemy bombers?

Kill enemy fighters?

Stop enemy bombers from hitting your ships?

Stop enemy fighters from blocking your bombers?

Each purpose calls for a different flight composition.

Eg the YT1300 is a great escort for your slow ships, since it has high health.

Look at Tycho, he is fantastic at the last two roles. He can jump in and lock down bombers or fighters. Han is absolutely amazing at locking down targets, given he always goes first.

Interceptors (ties) are great for taking down bombers, or first strike against fighters, but melt when attacked themselves. Xwings are great at giving and taking punches, but you pay for that durability.

What you take depends on your overall strategy. I like bomber and ywing swarms because the take forever to kill. E.g the game ends before all of them are dead.

I feel, as empire, that 25% dedicated bombers (Rhymer and a wingman), 25% flex (advance/Vader), and 50% superiority is the best.

This allows you to handle even 100% superiority lists while utilizing your ordnance, and decimate most other superiority-light lists quickly so that you can start lobbing blue dice at ships.

Running the numbers for 2x TIE Bomber, 2x TIE Adv, 4x TIE fighter comes out to 0.074. Rhymer and Vader will dilute that a bit which is why I left them out. But we're not that far off.

What I'd like to understand is why the .08 target? It seems like a lot of work based around an arbitrary number. Is this in some way based off of ship ratios? How did you reach the target number?

What is the purpose of your fighters?

Kill enemy bombers?

Kill enemy fighters?

Stop enemy bombers from hitting your ships?

Stop enemy fighters from blocking your bombers?

Each purpose calls for a different flight composition.

Eg the YT1300 is a great escort for your slow ships, since it has high health.

Look at Tycho, he is fantastic at the last two roles. He can jump in and lock down bombers or fighters. Han is absolutely amazing at locking down targets, given he always goes first.

Interceptors (ties) are great for taking down bombers, or first strike against fighters, but melt when attacked themselves. Xwings are great at giving and taking punches, but you pay for that durability.

What you take depends on your overall strategy. I like bomber and ywing swarms because the take forever to kill. E.g the game ends before all of them are dead.

I don't disagree with all this, but it misses the point. Bomber and Y-wing swarms are great vs all-ship lists but can suffer against superiority lists. It doesn't matter if they take a while to kill, if all they are doing is throwing 1 or 2 blue dice vs squadrons and the enemy is throw 3-5 back.

My goal is to have a loose guide of sorts to create a balanced list vs all-comers. I can certainly design lists to the common meta. But that's not so helpful if say I'm going to a scene that's brand new to me. The safe thing to do is go with a mostly ship list with a few squadrons. Or go with fighter/bombers like the B-wing. But I'm getting a little tired of the slowness of the B-wing and want to branch out, which entails a mix fighters and bombers to be a "neutral" list. Going all Y-wing is not a neutral list. It relies on saturation in one direction to overwhelm the enemy. The sheer numbers are enough to handle a token screen, and its quite effective. But I know that. I'm not interested in an extreme list. I'm interested in a flexible, balanced list.

Going with 2:1 TIE fighters to Bombers is nice. I can run 6 TIEs, and 3 Bombers which is a nice 75 points (before Rhymer upgrades and so forth). Those 6 TIEs won't win every fight, but gives me a strong superiority aspect while the Bombers help keep the all-ship lists honest. The multiple's of 3 also work nicely with VSDs or the recently talked about Tarkin/Raider/Hanger Pocket Carriers.

What I'd like to understand is why the .08 target? It seems like a lot of work based around an arbitrary number. Is this in some way based off of ship ratios? How did you reach the target number?

I should have provided this link in the OP and will edit to do that.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189785-running-the-numbers-wave-2-offense/

I basically looked for a reasonable "half-way" point between the bomber and fighter numbers and choose 0.080. Then I looked to see what ships could do at medium range and 0.080 is on par with an ISD2 shooting 2 arcs with a CF command. A few ships are more efficient, but I had to pick something.

Going 1:1 TIE fighter to TIE Bomber generates a 0.088 efficiency, so the numbers are pretty touchy. I don't pretend this is a perfect method. I'm just trying to generate some math to see if it can guide my experience.

I'm actually against tailored lists or meta-oriented lists myself (unless I'm helping someone out). So I always run all-commer lists myself

Imperials are one kinda tied up more with this idea since rebel ships are more multi-role oriented. For instance, X-Wings are great superiority fighters and OK bombers. So taking 6 of them fulfills most wants in an all-comer list except one: options.

The extra cost of named pilots and their abilities plus their tokens means that harnessing them as options (especially with the new squad pack) is going to be a big thing. Having a rogue or two is going to be invaluable. Intel is great. Tokens are amazing deterants, etc.

What I'd like to understand is why the .08 target? It seems like a lot of work based around an arbitrary number. Is this in some way based off of ship ratios? How did you reach the target number?

I should have provided this link in the OP and will edit to do that.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189785-running-the-numbers-wave-2-offense/

I basically looked for a reasonable "half-way" point between the bomber and fighter numbers and choose 0.080. Then I looked to see what ships could do at medium range and 0.080 is on par with an ISD2 shooting 2 arcs with a CF command. A few ships are more efficient, but I had to pick something.

Going 1:1 TIE fighter to TIE Bomber generates a 0.088 efficiency, so the numbers are pretty touchy. I don't pretend this is a perfect method. I'm just trying to generate some math to see if it can guide my experience.

That makes sense, although I think finding an objective comparison/ratio is going to be very difficult given that you've got two different sets of attacks (anti-squadron or anti-ship) that work against very different kinds of targets, which are contingent upon your opponent's list selection and useage (e.g. did s/he bring squadrons? how many? what kind? where are they? how is s/he using them?). Plus there are other factors to consider beyond just damage, such as durability (from both health and defensive tokens - the longer your squadron stays on the table, the more it can attack throughout the course of the game) and speed (can it get to a place reliably to use its attack dice, particularly against important targets?). I don't know how I would even start to properly measure and give an objective value to all those factors put together.

So I guess what I mean in short is I like that you're trying to work something out and thinking about it but I'm not really sure it's possible to math-bash something out that properly considers numerous different factors considering all of the numerical values inherent to squadrons (beyond just attack dice) and the meta- and useage-dependent elements that will be unique to different locales and games.

I'm actually quite happy Armada is resistant to this math-bashing. Wouldn't be very interesting if all I had to do is create the proper spreadsheet to win.

I'm quite liking the 2:1 fighter to bomber ratio for the TIEs. It jives with my experience, and serves as a reasonable rule of thumb to then deviate and explore from. A single 2 TIE, 1 Bomber "package" is a very convenient 25 points and a multiple of 3 squads making for a nice starting point in early list building where I know I want a balanced set of squadrons, but don't have an ultra-specific goal for them in the list. "See enemy. Bash enemy"

So let me ask you, if you have points to spare. Do you find yourself upgrading squadrons from Fighters to Interceptors? I often do this. Its part of the reason I have Interceptors. Also with squadrons, and this may require some more thought, I feel like going first is ok. Round 2 you can squadron command and with 1-2 black and 3-4 blue ship bombardments (rhymer ball) you activate first yet attack with essentially the firepower of 2 ships. This thought just popped into my head and I am working on a squadron article for my blog and this will be better explored as i contemplate it.

I'm actually quite happy Armada is resistant to this math-bashing. Wouldn't be very interesting if all I had to do is create the proper spreadsheet to win.

I'm quite liking the 2:1 fighter to bomber ratio for the TIEs. It jives with my experience, and serves as a reasonable rule of thumb to then deviate and explore from. A single 2 TIE, 1 Bomber "package" is a very convenient 25 points and a multiple of 3 squads making for a nice starting point in early list building where I know I want a balanced set of squadrons, but don't have an ultra-specific goal for them in the list. "See enemy. Bash enemy"

I think I would prefer closer to a 1:1 ratio, as you can be certain your opponent will be bringing ships, but the depths of their commitment to squadrons is less ascertainable ahead of time (and hey you can always proc Swarm using the bombers if necessary). I'd also highly recommend Major Rhymer, who will drop his sick rhymes (and bombs) all over the hulls of enemy capital ships and help your squadrons to do likewise.

So let me ask you, if you have points to spare. Do you find yourself upgrading squadrons from Fighters to Interceptors? I often do this. Its part of the reason I have Interceptors. Also with squadrons, and this may require some more thought, I feel like going first is ok. Round 2 you can squadron command and with 1-2 black and 3-4 blue ship bombardments (rhymer ball) you activate first yet attack with essentially the firepower of 2 ships. This thought just popped into my head and I am working on a squadron article for my blog and this will be better explored as i contemplate it.

I have a hard time justifying the nearly 40% increase in cost in the current meta where enemy squadrons may not even make an appearance. If I'm up vs. no squadrons, Interceptors are effectively TIE Fighters with +1 speed. They're superlative anti-squadron fighters (particularly with a TIE Advanced around to help them proc Swarm and act as a meat shield), though, and I will likely be more tempted by them if Rogues and Villains makes squadron useage more consistent.

So let me ask you, if you have points to spare. Do you find yourself upgrading squadrons from Fighters to Interceptors? I often do this. Its part of the reason I have Interceptors. Also with squadrons, and this may require some more thought, I feel like going first is ok. Round 2 you can squadron command and with 1-2 black and 3-4 blue ship bombardments (rhymer ball) you activate first yet attack with essentially the firepower of 2 ships. This thought just popped into my head and I am working on a squadron article for my blog and this will be better explored as i contemplate it.

Depending on the ship build, I'd rather add flight controllers to up the anti-squad aspect. Gives the bombers some actual threat level. I need to see a lot more squadrons before going to Interceptors.

Although the math above can help. The Int/Bomb ratio is 3:4. So for instances where I know I want 4 bombers, 3 Ints might be superior to the equally costed 4 TIE fighters (or 6 TIEs to maintain ratio) if I know I can only reliably send 3 fighters with the second carrier. (The first carrier sending the 4 bombers).

Ive been running 5 ties and rhymer. Cheap and works (56 points). Enough to deal ships damage vs a no or light fighter opponent and can be good laser fodder to keep heavy fighter lists off you.

Interceptors, howl, dengar...nuff said

This probably isn't the best move, but I pick my fighters based on what looks awesome.

For rebs, that means 2-3 xwings, a pair of Y's, and lots of telling Porkins to pull up.

This probably isn't the best move, but I pick my fighters based on what looks awesome.

For rebs, that means 2-3 xwings, a pair of Y's, and lots of telling Porkins to pull up.

Honestly there really isnt anything wrong with that as long as you can maximize their strengths it still works. Their really isn't a bad model in the game, some are just easier to apply than others.