So with squadrons now an integral part of the meta (not to mention to throw in some salt into the eyes of those who've been complaining about them in the forums). I find all squadrons tend to fall into one of three categories.

1. Bombers: As it is said, these squadrons primary purpose is to attack ships. Most of them have the common Bomber trait, but a squadron does not need to have bomber trait to function as a bomber.
2. Interceptors: Much like scissors cuts paper, these squadrons are designed to tie up bombers and eliminate them quickly. Snipe and Swarm or any other anti-squadron abilities/traits tend to be the best traits for Interceptors. Not very effective against ships although there are some squadrons that could classify as Multi-role.
3. Escort Support (Escorts for short): Their purpose is to ensure Bombers reach their target either by protecting them from Intercepotrs with Escort trait or prevent them from being tied down with Intel trait. Tends to be the most divers role that could be dual purpose or support squadrons as well. They sort of act as a balancing act with the more points you spent on Escorts is less points you can spend for Bombers.

However we can take this a step further and give them a sub-class based upon what type of fleet they would be placed in.

• High Investment: This is not necessarily the fleet point cost of the individual squadron but more of the total points invested into squadrons and squadrons commands/tokens (Expanded Hanger Bays, Flotillas, etc). High Investment Squadrons are Squadrons that will be found in a squadron heavy list such as Rhymer Ball. Best Example is the TIE Bomber, relatively low squadron cost (16 points for Rhymer and 9 for Bombers Squadrons) but the build for this would be lots of 9 point Bomber squadrons and escorts and squadron commands to where most of the fleet list is spent on the Bombers.
• Low Investment: For all those who don't want to see squadrons take over the map this subtype is for you. Many squadrons in this subtype have traits like Rouge so you don't have to spend a dial on squadrons commands keeping your ships focused on the 3 important commands. Some also have traits like grit or relay so you don't need too many squadrons to keep yours from getting tied down. Good example of a Low Investment Bomber is the VT-49 Decimator. A Rouge Squadron that is pretty good at taking out flotillas thanks to its large anti-ship volley (I'll just accuracy that scatter for you).
• Variable Investment: These are squadrons that could be in both squadron heavy and squadron light fleets. Best Example is the Firespray-31. Having Rouge and a lot of hull makes it seem perfect for it to be a lone wolf, however many "Rhymer ball" list have put Firesprays in their fleets because of the synergy with Rhymer's ability.

note* due to some confusion on the sub-class it is not the cost of the individual squadron. To sum it up a High-investment squadron are found only in squadron heavy lists while a low-investment squadron are found in squadron light lists. And a Variable investment squadron could be found in either.

So now the hard part. Assigning a class and sub-class for each squadron (Aces can be in a different class then their generic squadrons). So far I've done 3 maybe I'll do 4.

• Major Rhymer Bomber, High Investment
• TIE Bomber Bomber High Investment
• Firespray-31 Bomber Varible Investment
• VT-49 Decimator Bomber Low Investment
• YT-1300 Escort High Investment
• X-wing Escort Low Investment
• Shara Bey Interceptor Low Investment

So which squadron would you place in what class? Lets see if we can get all the squadrons classified. (keep in mind classes might change based upon the meta).

Offensive and defensive squads

Tycho and not tycho squads

I think we could put an other categorie with the arrival of ''strategic'' squadrons like the Lambda class shuttle or the VCX-100 freigther. They don't really fit in one of those 3 categories that you state in your preamble.

VCX-100 is maybe more equip like a squadron insted of the Lambda but I don't think you will want to use him as so.

We could call this section ''strategic squadron''.

I would also say Counter is a good skill for Interceptors, especially considering that the two fastest non-uniques (until Defenders) both have it.

I wouldn't consider the VT-49 to be a bomber in its primary role, nor a low investment. You would be better off taking 2 Tie/B with BCC for support. 22 points is a lot, and while it has 3 anti-ship dice, 25% do no damage, while the other 25% help you put damage where you want.

I'd consider it more of an escort/interceptor hybrid since it has a lot of hull and is good at killing squads.

This is a great topic. I'd be curious to know how other Imperial players make up their fighter compliment.

For me it was 43 points (Rhymer and bombers), 84 points in fighters. That's almost 2 to 1 fighters to bombers, largely a product of a very squad heavy meta.

I think we could put an other categorie with the arrival of ''strategic'' squadrons like the Lambda class shuttle or the VCX-100 freigther. They don't really fit in one of those 3 categories that you state in your preamble.

VCX-100 is maybe more equip like a squadron insted of the Lambda but I don't think you will want to use him as so.

We could call this section ''strategic squadron''.

I would the classify the strategic support squadrons as Escort-Low Investment or probably better as Escort-Variable Investment since their purpose is to take the squadron command burden off of other ships. Thus lowering the fleet point investment into squadrons.

I would also say Counter is a good skill for Interceptors, especially considering that the two fastest non-uniques (until Defenders) both have it.

Counter is good, but the thing about counter is you need squadrons without snipe to shoot at them. I'll throw in another ship the YT-1300 which is one of the best escorts have the escort+counter combo where you have to shoot them before you get to the Y-wing and B-wing bombers.

I wouldn't consider the VT-49 to be a bomber in its primary role, nor a low investment. You would be better off taking 2 Tie/B with BCC for support. 22 points is a lot, and while it has 3 anti-ship dice, 25% do no damage, while the other 25% help you put damage where you want.

I'd consider it more of an escort/interceptor hybrid since it has a lot of hull and is good at killing squads.

The investment sub-class is not the point cost of the individual squadron but the total investment of number of fleet points into those squadrons (those two are very separate things). As for the low investment the three squadrons you have proposed still would need squadron commands so while you think it might only be a 21 point investment you are at least throwing in a flotilla or a Class-I Star Destroyer for squadron commands. Where the VT-49 has rouge so it doesn't need squadron commands and also counter-1 so it doesn't need an escort. The prefect Low Investment Bomber. Sure 22 points is expensive for a squadron but the whole point is you don't have to spend more points on other ships/squadrons to make it work.

I have them rated in following types:

Fighters

Fighter bomber

Bomber

Support ship

TIE Defender: Interceptor, Low Investment

High speed plus high health allow these ships to tie down multiple enemies and have a good chance at surviving AS fire.

Aggressor: Interceptor, Low Investment

The pseudo-mirror to the YT2400, this ship's rogue ability allows independent operation. It's stats are good at doing anti-squadron work.

TIE Defender: Interceptor, Low Investment

High speed plus high health allow these ships to tie down multiple enemies and have a good chance at surviving AS fire.

Aggressor: Interceptor, Low Investment

The pseudo-mirror to the YT2400, this ship's rogue ability allows independent operation. It's stats are good at doing anti-squadron work.

I would think defenders are high investment, to get the most out of their speed/bomber ability will usually require boosted comms/command center/lamda.

TIE Defender: Interceptor, Low Investment

High speed plus high health allow these ships to tie down multiple enemies and have a good chance at surviving AS fire.

Aggressor: Interceptor, Low Investment

The pseudo-mirror to the YT2400, this ship's rogue ability allows independent operation. It's stats are good at doing anti-squadron work.

I would think defenders are high investment, to get the most out of their speed/bomber ability will usually require boosted comms/command center/lamda.

Well, since 1 Defender replaces 2 TIE fighters it reduces your need for Squadron command slots. They already have enough dice that they don't need Flight Controllers. They aren't bombers so don't need BCC.

They are just 16 points for a vanilla activation with a great fighter.

YMMV, of course.

TIE Defender: Interceptor, Low Investment

High speed plus high health allow these ships to tie down multiple enemies and have a good chance at surviving AS fire.

Aggressor: Interceptor, Low Investment

The pseudo-mirror to the YT2400, this ship's rogue ability allows independent operation. It's stats are good at doing anti-squadron work.

I would think defenders are high investment, to get the most out of their speed/bomber ability will usually require boosted comms/command center/lamda.

Well, since 1 Defender replaces 2 TIE fighters it reduces your need for Squadron command slots. They already have enough dice that they don't need Flight Controllers. They aren't bombers so don't need BCC.

They are just 16 points for a vanilla activation with a great fighter.

YMMV, of course.

Tie Defenders are bombers. But you want the activation for them.

Where the VT-49 has rouge so it doesn't need squadron commands and also counter-1 so it doesn't need an escort. The prefect Low Investment Bomber. Sure 22 points is expensive for a squadron but the whole point is you don't have to spend more points on other ships/squadrons to make it work.

The decimator is easily stopped from bombing by a single squadron which keeps in engagement range, so the analysis as a perfect low investment bomber doesnt strike me as sound. It does not sport bomber to begin with, the 1,5 average damage against ships is not really impressive for the investment of 22 points, and the anti-squadron armament is not enough to take out even single squadrons who bind you by engagement.

Where the VT-49 has rouge so it doesn't need squadron commands and also counter-1 so it doesn't need an escort. The prefect Low Investment Bomber. Sure 22 points is expensive for a squadron but the whole point is you don't have to spend more points on other ships/squadrons to make it work.

The decimator is easily stopped from bombing by a single squadron which keeps in engagement range, so the analysis as a perfect low investment bomber doesnt strike me as sound. It does not sport bomber to begin with, the 1,5 average damage against ships is not really impressive for the investment of 22 points, and the anti-squadron armament is not enough to take out even single squadrons who bind you by engagement.

It can kill Tie/I, Tie/F and Z-95s. And I expect a lot of Z-95s to be played.

Where the VT-49 has rouge so it doesn't need squadron commands and also counter-1 so it doesn't need an escort. The prefect Low Investment Bomber. Sure 22 points is expensive for a squadron but the whole point is you don't have to spend more points on other ships/squadrons to make it work.

The decimator is easily stopped from bombing by a single squadron which keeps in engagement range, so the analysis as a perfect low investment bomber doesnt strike me as sound. It does not sport bomber to begin with, the 1,5 average damage against ships is not really impressive for the investment of 22 points, and the anti-squadron armament is not enough to take out even single squadrons who bind you by engagement.

It can kill Tie/I, Tie/F and Z-95s. And I expect a lot of Z-95s to be played.

Do you? Why?

Where the VT-49 has rouge so it doesn't need squadron commands and also counter-1 so it doesn't need an escort. The prefect Low Investment Bomber. Sure 22 points is expensive for a squadron but the whole point is you don't have to spend more points on other ships/squadrons to make it work.

The decimator is easily stopped from bombing by a single squadron which keeps in engagement range, so the analysis as a perfect low investment bomber doesnt strike me as sound. It does not sport bomber to begin with, the 1,5 average damage against ships is not really impressive for the investment of 22 points, and the anti-squadron armament is not enough to take out even single squadrons who bind you by engagement.

It can kill Tie/I, Tie/F and Z-95s. And I expect a lot of Z-95s to be played.

Do you? Why?

They are cheap fighter screens. I don't mean a lot as in 16 Z-95s in a list. More like a lot of lists will run 2-6 just to tie bombers for a turn so their MC30s can get out of the fight.

A few brief notes:

1. Just like with actual world aerial warfare, there is going to need to be an acknowledgement of the role of multi-purpose fighters. To give in-game examples, the performance of the A-Wing means it is both an interceptor and a bomber (.75 damage / 11 points is still one of the better investments, and the range it can deliver said payload at is a problem for the other player) if we are talking raw points. Likewise, a wing entirely composed of multi-role squadrons is, in essence, ready for any situation.
2. You need a 4th category for support squadrons given Intel & the introduction of Strategic ships. I would be hard pressed to say a Jumpmaster 2000 is a bomber, interceptor, or escort, but it's sure something.
3. I don't think you can define investment purely based on the squadron. Is a TIE bomber low investment if I take just two of them along with some rogues and one gozanti? Is it high investment if I have a super-carrier ISD with BCC gozanti escort to alpha strike? That's a question that depends on the rest of the list.

I would consider defenders a fighter bomber combo same with firesprays.

Where the VT-49 has rouge so it doesn't need squadron commands and also counter-1 so it doesn't need an escort. The prefect Low Investment Bomber. Sure 22 points is expensive for a squadron but the whole point is you don't have to spend more points on other ships/squadrons to make it work.

The decimator is easily stopped from bombing by a single squadron which keeps in engagement range, so the analysis as a perfect low investment bomber doesnt strike me as sound. It does not sport bomber to begin with, the 1,5 average damage against ships is not really impressive for the investment of 22 points, and the anti-squadron armament is not enough to take out even single squadrons who bind you by engagement.

Sure it can still get tied up but with 3 black anti-squadron and counter 1 being engaged with it is a dangerous encounter. Also not all squadrons with decent anti-ship capability has to have bomber, although it does help. You can take 3 of these for only 66 points which is less than half of the allocation for squadrons so it really isn't that expensive in the squadron meta. What I consider high investment usually comes around 100+ points in squadrons and another 50 or so in squadron support. Sure it might not be as effective as a Rhymer ball but in the low-investment sub-class you don't need it to be as effective because you are putting more points into your ships. You are missing the point of the classification. It is not if it is the best in class but rather which class is the better fit for that squadron. It can't catch faster squadrons and it doesn't have the ability to help other bombers get past fighter screens. However with a decent antiship value (even for lacking bomber) and a robust hull value I think this is better for taking out flotillas than TIE-Fighters or Y-wings.

A few brief notes:

1. Just like with actual world aerial warfare, there is going to need to be an acknowledgement of the role of multi-purpose fighters. To give in-game examples, the performance of the A-Wing means it is both an interceptor and a bomber (.75 damage / 11 points is still one of the better investments, and the range it can deliver said payload at is a problem for the other player) if we are talking raw points. Likewise, a wing entirely composed of multi-role squadrons is, in essence, ready for any situation.
2. You need a 4th category for support squadrons given Intel & the introduction of Strategic ships. I would be hard pressed to say a Jumpmaster 2000 is a bomber, interceptor, or escort, but it's sure something.
3. I don't think you can define investment purely based on the squadron. Is a TIE bomber low investment if I take just two of them along with some rogues and one gozanti? Is it high investment if I have a super-carrier ISD with BCC gozanti escort to alpha strike? That's a question that depends on the rest of the list.

1. Multipurpose usually has the cures on tabletop games as master of none. The only advantage is well for a small investment you can have something that is adaptable from its primary task. For Fighter-bombers I think the overall task is to attack ships (aka bomber) however if needed it can engage other bomber squadrons to tie them up. Still it depends on what function but the flexibility does mean you can avoid investing a lot of points. Lets take a look at X-wing, I think that might be a Escort variable investment. I would put X-wings mostly as escorts for Y-wings and B-wings but with their bomber capability it would be in a fleet that doesn't have a lot of bombers as I can use the X-wing's red bomber die to supplement the Y-wing firepower. 2 Y-wings and 2-3 X-wing squadrons sounds solid for a fleet list with a low squadron count.
2. When you come to think about it Escort really is the support class as they are primarily designed to support bombers on their attack runs. Now is the Jumpmaster an escort? Probably not? I will admit jumpmasters are rather tricky because they have intel and swarm. The anti-squadron value is something to be lacking but speed is alright. Might be good as a low investment interceptor with intel it helps you get past those escorts without having to outnumber them thus saving you the need to spend almost all of your allocation in squadrons saving points for ships.
3. I think you might have misunderstood that section. I did call a 9 points squadron a high investment sub-class and a 22 point squadron a low investment sub-class. I high investment is not the investment of the squadron but rather if it would be found in a squadron heavy list instead of a squadron light list. A Low investment squadron would not be found in squadron heavy list but instead a list that only has a handful of points (<70 points cost of a small ship) spent in squadrons. High investment squadrons don't really do that well when taken in less numbers, likewise Low Investment squadrons don't do better en mass when compared to High investment squadrons. Squadrons that do well in both heavy and light squadron list are listed as variable. I'll edit the OP to make that more clear.

I'd say change Escorts to Support so you can include all the odds and ends ships that are not primarily fighters or bombers. Namily, guys like the Lambda who can essentially just spend the entire game moving those objective markers.

I'd say change Escorts to Support so you can include all the odds and ends ships that are not primarily fighters or bombers. Namily, guys like the Lambda who can essentially just spend the entire game moving those objective markers.

Maybe I'll just call them Escort Support instead

Where the VT-49 has rouge so it doesn't need squadron commands and also counter-1 so it doesn't need an escort. The prefect Low Investment Bomber. Sure 22 points is expensive for a squadron but the whole point is you don't have to spend more points on other ships/squadrons to make it work.

The decimator is easily stopped from bombing by a single squadron which keeps in engagement range, so the analysis as a perfect low investment bomber doesnt strike me as sound. It does not sport bomber to begin with, the 1,5 average damage against ships is not really impressive for the investment of 22 points, and the anti-squadron armament is not enough to take out even single squadrons who bind you by engagement.

Sure it can still get tied up but with 3 black anti-squadron and counter 1 being engaged with it is a dangerous encounter. Also not all squadrons with decent anti-ship capability has to have bomber, although it does help. You can take 3 of these for only 66 points which is less than half of the allocation for squadrons so it really isn't that expensive in the squadron meta. What I consider high investment usually comes around 100+ points in squadrons and another 50 or so in squadron support. Sure it might not be as effective as a Rhymer ball but in the low-investment sub-class you don't need it to be as effective because you are putting more points into your ships. You are missing the point of the classification. It is not if it is the best in class but rather which class is the better fit for that squadron. It can't catch faster squadrons and it doesn't have the ability to help other bombers get past fighter screens. However with a decent antiship value (even for lacking bomber) and a robust hull value I think this is better for taking out flotillas than TIE-Fighters or Y-wings.

I am not missing the point of this classification, I am just arguing that the classification into three classes does not make much sense in the first place. 3 black AS and counter 1 sure is an okay armament, but not for 22 points. Same can be stated for the anti-ship part, it is simply too expensive in my book to field it just for the 3 blues.. The decimator sure will find a role on the table, but its not covered by the three categories which you raised. Same is true for the defender (bomber? escort? interceptor?) and various other squadrons, so I would suggest to add other categories and to come up with a comprehensible way how to categorize each squadron. Cause as you can see, just sorting them based on opinion and feeling is not eally working out..

Here are two other categories:

Ace killers (able to bypass or block Scatter): Mauler, Bobba, Ten Numb, X-wings

Generic killers: Decimator, Valen Rudor, etc.

At first I was questioning this post but when it came down to it, this post got me thinking. I started crunching some numbers and using three categories of anti-squadron, anti-ship, and all around a came up with somewhat a numerical list.

Here is a link to my general process: http://modise95.blogspot.com/2016/12/star-wars-armada-squadron-threat.html

So, in summary I did some spreadsheet stuff that took into account average damage of the squadrons, factored in a flotilla supporting non-rogue squadrons and then threw in threat range.

When looking at this I did not take into account special abilities other than rogue, so abilities like relay, swarm, howlrunner, flight controllers will throw all these numbers off.

At first I was questioning this post but when it came down to it, this post got me thinking. I started crunching some numbers and using three categories of anti-squadron, anti-ship, and all around a came up with somewhat a numerical list.

Here is a link to my general process: http://modise95.blogspot.com/2016/12/star-wars-armada-squadron-threat.html

So, in summary I did some spreadsheet stuff that took into account average damage of the squadrons, factored in a flotilla supporting non-rogue squadrons and then threw in threat range.

When looking at this I did not take into account special abilities other than rogue, so abilities like relay, swarm, howlrunner, flight controllers will throw all these numbers off.

Actually I take a look at things like swarm and Rouge because it does affect how much your list is spending on those squadrons thus the sub-class. A Swarm would be in a High Investment because the more squadrons the more effective it is as Swarm tends to not have much HP (Jumpmasters being the exception). Rouge is a great trait for Low Investment because then you don't need any squadron dials/tokens to get a good activation from it.