<3

Blail (this is in good fun) I think it is time for you to hang up the squadron argument.

FFG apparently loves the squadron game and they are not going anywhere. Embrace it. We just got a ton of new ones in CC and Wave 5. Not only that we got strategic and relay which make them bonkers important. On the flip-side they also introduced Flechettes and snipe to deal with other squads.

I think that is the future. FFG will continue to buff the squadron game and the anti-squadron game. It is part of the game, always will be. You have to have an answer for it. Embrace it.

You know what our Vassal World Cup pods (6) answer was? Anti-squad really. Three of us took significant anti-squad numbers to keep those bombers off our backs. You know how Ard is going to wreck our Pod? He didn't take a single ****ed squadron so our precious anti-squad is pretty meaningless.

**** you, Ard. **** you.

(**** probably not "I love")

I would really hope not. I'd love to get more use out of my ships, rather than my squadrons.

Also, that is the classic over-meta reaction that makes you feel like you wasted 1/4 of your list against something that ended up not coming against you. I don't know why I should expect that to be a fun part of the game.

Also, I'm extremely down about the fact that you'd ask me to drop it after I wrote out a long, attempted-reasoned post with numbers and evidence to be ignored. In fact, that seems very much like, if you can't force the assumption that I'm wrong, just ignore me when I've got evidence and reasoning for people to consider.

So, no. Please do not ask me to drop it now. And I do not enjoy squadrons.

Different people enjoy this game for different reasons, and you're mostly telling us who don't want to be focused on squadrons that our way of playing should be invalid, where there really isn't a good reason why it couldn't be valid. Its not like we're saying capital ships should crap on squadrons. No, we just don't want to keep seeing them crap on all ship types over and over again.

Also here:

On the other hand,

We're playing Star Wars Armada, a game about Star Wars fleet-scale space battles. We are not playing 19th Century Naval Engagements IN SPACE.

Again, squadrons are a huge part of Star Wars fleet battles.

But if I wanted squadrons to be the most important thing in the game, I'd play X-Wing.

But X-Wing is not a game about squadrons and doesnt have them....

If we wanted to play with little star fighters we would play Xwing.

52% of ALL entrants, large data size, took large ships. At each level of wins, that percentage dropped, until at the end it was only 33% of fleets contained a large ship.

If we wanted to play with little star fighters we would play Xwing.

I'm addressing this point, and this point only

The games are different. They are made by the same company, but they shouldn't be compared... Beyond the Star Wars Skin, they are very different, with neither being "Better", because they go and do separate mechanic things...

I don't want to play X-Wing. I have no desire to play X-Wing. I saw X-Wing, and I looked at its Mechanics, and I went, "No, that reminds me too much of some other things I've done in my life, and I don't want to play it..."

But I totally want to play with little star fighters. Little ships. From the hard tactical thought level, to going "pew pew pew" with my 3 year old... I want to play with little Star Fighters... Some days I "Pew pew pew" with a Star Destroyer. Some days its the Ghost... Some days I'm the one being Pew-Pew-Pew'd by an Interdictor!

So the fact X-Wing and Armada share things such as "X-Wings", doesn't mean that one should play one or the other, just because they're "little ships"....

Blail (this is in good fun) I think it is time for you to hang up the squadron argument.

FFG apparently loves the squadron game and they are not going anywhere. Embrace it. We just got a ton of new ones in CC and Wave 5. Not only that we got strategic and relay which make them bonkers important. On the flip-side they also introduced Flechettes and snipe to deal with other squads.

I think that is the future. FFG will continue to buff the squadron game and the anti-squadron game. It is part of the game, always will be. You have to have an answer for it. Embrace it.

You know what our Vassal World Cup pods (6) answer was? Anti-squad really. Three of us took significant anti-squad numbers to keep those bombers off our backs. You know how Ard is going to wreck our Pod? He didn't take a single ****ed squadron so our precious anti-squad is pretty meaningless.

**** you, Ard. **** you.

(**** probably not "I love")

I would really hope not. I'd love to get more use out of my ships, rather than my squadrons.

Also, that is the classic over-meta reaction that makes you feel like you wasted 1/4 of your list against something that ended up not coming against you. I don't know why I should expect that to be a fun part of the game.

Also, I'm extremely down about the fact that you'd ask me to drop it after I wrote out a long, attempted-reasoned post with numbers and evidence to be ignored. In fact, that seems very much like, if you can't force the assumption that I'm wrong, just ignore me when I've got evidence and reasoning for people to consider.

So, no. Please do not ask me to drop it now. And I do not enjoy squadrons.

Different people enjoy this game for different reasons, and you're mostly telling us who don't want to be focused on squadrons that our way of playing should be invalid, where there really isn't a good reason why it couldn't be valid. Its not like we're saying capital ships should crap on squadrons. No, we just don't want to keep seeing them crap on all ship types over and over again.

Also here:

On the other hand,

We're playing Star Wars Armada, a game about Star Wars fleet-scale space battles. We are not playing 19th Century Naval Engagements IN SPACE.

Again, squadrons are a huge part of Star Wars fleet battles.

But if I wanted squadrons to be the most important thing in the game, I'd play X-Wing.

But X-Wing is not a game about squadrons and doesnt have them....

If we wanted to play with little star fighters we would play Xwing.

52% of ALL entrants, large data size, took large ships. At each level of wins, that percentage dropped, until at the end it was only 33% of fleets contained a large ship.

I want to play with little star fighters but I don't want to play xwing.

Blail relax. Dude, I told you it was in good fun but you missed that part. I'm talking not about this specific post. Trust me, everybody and their droid knows you do not like squadrons. I'm talking about month after month of hating on them.

Edit: And I did not tell you how to play. I told you that you need to deal with them.

Blail relax. Dude, I told you it was in good fun but you missed that part. I'm talking not about this specific post. Trust me, everybody and their droid knows you do not like squadrons. I'm talking about month after month of hating on them.

Edit: And I did not tell you how to play. I told you that you need to deal with them.

Sigh. This is definitely not fun.

Blail relax. Dude, I told you it was in good fun but you missed that part. I'm talking not about this specific post. Trust me, everybody and their droid knows you do not like squadrons. I'm talking about month after month of hating on them.

Edit: And I did not tell you how to play. I told you that you need to deal with them.

Sigh. This is definitely not fun.

But why? I think that is a HUGE issue. This is a game.

Blail relax. Dude, I told you it was in good fun but you missed that part. I'm talking not about this specific post. Trust me, everybody and their droid knows you do not like squadrons. I'm talking about month after month of hating on them.

Edit: And I did not tell you how to play. I told you that you need to deal with them.

Sigh. This is definitely not fun.

But why? I think that is a HUGE issue. This is a game.

One thing I loved this regionals season was my lists. I am a huge squadron lover. But I wanted to try something different so i went with one squadron (stupid Tycho) and squadron-less in my second Regional.

I placed 2nd in both. I will tell you I did have a blast running those ships.

Blail relax. Dude, I told you it was in good fun but you missed that part. I'm talking not about this specific post. Trust me, everybody and their droid knows you do not like squadrons. I'm talking about month after month of hating on them.

Edit: And I did not tell you how to play. I told you that you need to deal with them.

Sigh. This is definitely not fun.

But why? I think that is a HUGE issue. This is a game.

I know. =(

I haven't had fun playing anything except squadron lists in a long time. Feels like I'm not playing the game I want to play anymore, its all about, stop being murdered by the 134 4Gozanti Demolisher Rhymerball, or stop being murdered by the 134 3 transports and 2 nebulons.

Our entire community is... (mimicking Admiral Nelson), literally dead. All scared off by the same problem. They loved the hype of the ISDs, got wiped over and over my squadrons, sold their fleets.

Average chances to get a game here are 1 in 3-4 months

I personally, in real life also, would never stand down if someone told me, "too bad, this is how the system works, too bad for you if people like you are disadvantaged or the way you want to do things is just not acceptable when it doesn't harm anyone". I mean, hell, we have politics and people suffering in real ways for that.

That is a bummer. I will say, down here we are a hardcore group of just three that are crack-addicted to Armada. However, with CC we have roped in three more and hopefully we'll get them hooked too. CC is going to be the gateway drug

I don't get it

if EVERYONE was scared off by squadrons, who the hell was using squadrons to scare everyone off?

it does also surprise how generally daftly people react to squadrons

"oh look, it's a yavaris ball of B-wings better dive right in what could possibly go wrong!?!?!?"

with navigational superiority upgrades such as Mandine and Moff Jerry, you can actually attempt to break off and try interesting tactics like not just driving straight into the enemy like the most predictable bugger imaginable

not to mention that there's also an element of exchange in these games. If you kill the carriers, for example, the squadrons get pretty boned. Hell, if you kill the squadrons, you get a points exchange. It's not like they don't cost anything or cannot be attacked

not to mention there are more combos now, such as those crap Counter 1 quads but fortified with Agent Kallus to be a pretty scary deterrent to squadron attacks especially when you augment it with anti-squadron fire (gunnery teams, baby) and stuff like Mauler Mithel

not to mention that a lot of cards actually work against both squadrons and ships, such as everyone's favorite Floatilla poppers

and even TLRCs (but you'd need Kallus)

from my experience, any griping about squadrons is purely either an inability or unwillingness to try applying tactics

and if you refuse to counter a thing, either through list building or through flying, then said thing deserves to run you over. It would kind of suck otherwise

I don't get it

if EVERYONE was scared off by squadrons, who the hell was using squadrons to scare everyone off?

it does also surprise how generally daftly people react to squadrons

"oh look, it's a yavaris ball of B-wings better dive right in what could possibly go wrong!?!?!?"

with navigational superiority upgrades such as Mandine and Moff Jerry, you can actually attempt to break off and try interesting tactics like not just driving straight into the enemy like the most predictable bugger imaginable

not to mention that there's also an element of exchange in these games. If you kill the carriers, for example, the squadrons get pretty boned. Hell, if you kill the squadrons, you get a points exchange. It's not like they don't cost anything or cannot be attacked

not to mention there are more combos now, such as those crap Counter 1 quads but fortified with Agent Kallus to be a pretty scary deterrent to squadron attacks especially when you augment it with anti-squadron fire (gunnery teams, baby) and stuff like Mauler Mithel

not to mention that a lot of cards actually work against both squadrons and ships, such as everyone's favorite Floatilla poppers

and even TLRCs (but you'd need Kallus)

from my experience, any griping about squadrons is purely either an inability or unwillingness to try applying tactics

and if you refuse to counter a thing, either through list building or through flying, then said thing deserves to run you over. It would kind of suck otherwise

Roflmao at the yavaris line.

All the data makes it look like bomber lists are certainly at the top of the meta right now, but we've seen that with other lists before, too, right? I know we all love content getting released, but I wonder if a long(er) dry spell might help the meta stabilize and become more clear. That's how that works, right?

If there's an imbalance, you need to look at specific units, upgrades, and causes. You really can't keep blaming "squadrons" as a whole (nor "bombers" as a whole).

If there's an imbalance, it's going to be specific things.

So glad you typed that all up, Snip, thank you--I wasn't looking forward to doing it on my phone, but you pretty well captured my thoughts.

I would add that defining a given archetype like "bomber list" is fairly arbitrary, so we should be cognizant of that when doing this kind of analysis. Different kinds of bomber lists fly very differently, with different strengths and weaknesses. A Relay/Yavaris list is going to fly very differently from a triple VSD Rhymerball; an A-wing flash strike list will be a whole other ball of wax, as will a YT-2400 spam list. And each one of those can be further subdivided based on what was in the rest of the list. What about 110 points of X-wings + Jan, is that a bomber list?

My point is, I think we need to be careful not to be overly broad in characterizing "bomber list" as an archetype that should be performance-monitored. Not necessarily saying it is, just raising that caution.

As for the larger discussion, I have a really hard time weighing in on this. On the one hand, many of the best local players love playing squadrons, so I do see them have success. Shmitty's data points to them being at least good.

On the other, my own Mon Mothma MC30's counter the traditional carrier-centric bombers so hard that my first-hand experience recently has been watching tabling after tabling of these lists, in the hands of good players who know it's coming.

So I personally have a really hard time accepting this idea of the unstoppable bomber menace. I understand that not everybody is going to want to play what I do, but I also understand that I have a lot of really bad ideas for lists, which makes me seriously question the notion that I've somehow stumbled across the one and only silver bullet for fighting these lists without more squadrons. It makes me feel like there must surely be other comparably-effective approaches out there, since I myself make only the most razor-thin nod to squadron defense and do fine. I freely admit that I have no idea what those alternate approaches might look like, I just feel like they must be out there.

And Blail, I know this wasn't the crunchiest post, and it doesn't respond in a lot of depth to your regionals data analysis, sorry about that. Pretty tired and on a phone over here.

Ardy, you did way better than I could with two stubby thumbs and a smart-brick.

And very thoughtful too.

Actually, MC30 or CR90s Mothma has been one of my big tests for months. Imo, its one of the best ways to not get wiped out by squadrons. Mothma makes those small Rebel ships incredibly resilient to bomber fire. (Still require 50 points or so of squadrons to fend them off. I'd say 4 Awings + Mothma are no longer enough vs 134).

But beyond that, I'm really not certain what to do beyond throwing 100 points into every list I have chock full of Squadron death. Doesn't even seem like I'm playing 400 points anymore, more like 300, including transports to move these squadrons. And at 100 points, eventually you simply just ask... why bother? Throw the ships out, get 34 more points of squads, add 2 more transports and BCC.

My main way of determining if a list is a "bomber list" is simply, what intends to do the maximal sets of damage in a list?

Gunships - ships dominate.

Mixed forces - both. 8YT2400s probably fall here.

Bomber - 3Trans, 2 Neb Rieekan 130+ squadrons, 8-10 squadrons. That falls here. TWO naked NEBULONS of ship damage.

My other concern is, squadrons are good at everything:

Want to take down a big ship? Squadrons.

Small ship? Squadrons.

Flotillas hard to kill? Squadrons.

Flotillas hard to catch? Actually this one is probably best small ship to kill, but Rogue Squadrons does great too.

Squadrons bothering you? Squadrons beat them.

Which objectives don't out right favor squadrons and or hairy rock formations that hinder ships and absolutely don't hinder squadrons? Maybe (2 out of 8) x 3 now.

Sorry I am ranting. I think you all know this. If not I'd hope my dramaticism highlights the severity.

---

Under the "fleet composition" tab it shows a breakdown of averages. For the "winners" column it shows an average of 7.4 squadrons overall, 7.1 for Rebels, and 8 for Imperials.

What I find fascinating is that while the average number of squadrons for Imperials goes up as the placement improves, it actually goes DOWN for Rebels for top 8 and top 4 (both are below average). It only resumes its upward climb to above average for event winners.

I also find it interesting that while 90% of top 8 fleets contained at least one flotilla, only 60% contained 2+. That's obviously still a decent flotilla presence, but it doesn't seem to point towards spamming them as being particularly more competitive than bringing just the one.

Re: what is a problem?

I'm not entirely sure. First off we would need to dictate what exactly constitutes a "squadron fleet." Let's say, for example, that bomber heavy fleets become very popular and so people start bringing 90+ points of fighters. If we decide that any fleet spending 2/3 or more of its squadron points (90 points) is a "squadron fleet" then the fleets investing heavily in COUNTERS to the bomber fleets would be caught in our statistical net as part of the "problem" rather than part of the "solution," which would lead us to draw incorrect conclusions. I'd argue that for our purposes let's focus on fleets using squadrons to kill ships and define a "bomber fleet" as any fleet investing 100 or more of its squadron points into any/all of the following:

• bomber squadrons
• Intel squadrons
• the Bomber Command Center upgrade (8 points each)

There's still some holes in this catch-all. 8 YT-2400s would not meet this criteria, for example, and they can be used as a capable ship-killing force if the other guy doesn't take them seriously. 5 TIE Defenders+Maarek Stele would count, but they're also in the business of busting squadrons then late-game chasing after ships so it feels appropriate, if barely. You gotta start somewhere, anyways.

Anyways, let's use that definition for now. I'd say if over 50% of the averaged top 8 fleets at Regional tournaments are "bomber fleets," then there's a clear problem. At that point an archetype has achieved enough dominance to both win more than other archetypes (or archetype hybrids that don't do bombing). In particular, once you get a dominant archetype in any kind of competitive game, teching against it becomes a better and better idea (see: the rise of Rieekan when DemolisherMSU was a big deal back in wave 2) that's less and less likely to go poorly for the counter-tech player. If an archetype can reach and maintain a 50%+ representation DESPITE being something that's being increasingly teched against, that's a big problem.

Any percentage chunks below that become less worrisome for me. Bomber fleets at 1/3 representation in the top 8 seem fine to me. It's a viable strategy. It's only once their share of the pie gets too big that it's even a problem.

Re: how does one even solve the problem?

That's effectively up to FFG. I know they monitor tournament data and discuss the meta with top-tier players so they're aware if something seems too good. We as a community can't actually DO anything should we actually agree that a problem exists (which is already an arduous task).

Thanks for your thoughts too Snipafist.

Ahh, I grabbed the 8 incorrectly, that is the Imp number, sorry. Yes 7.4.

Still generally the trend is upwards climb and higher success rate for 8-10 squadron use.

What is a bomber list?

I'd reckon that intel isn't a requirement. Cureently a lot of people are doing without. And one data point is Rhymer 7TB 2TF, no intel. That's still at the very least strongly mixed forces/bomber, and I'd reckon, still more bomber oriented, esp if the fleet had BCC.

1. BCC

2. bomber squadrons (+ Rhymer, Norra, Yavaris -> these tend to tip to being Bomber lists)

3. Over 90points in squadrons.

(4. Set of Bomber 3 objectives: Prec Strike, Contested Outpost, Superior Positions )

What is reasonable levels of dominance?

I would also argue that 50% is wayyy too much. We consider in Starcraft 2, World of Warships winrate above 5% of norm. Now this game is harder to track than those, but even anomalies exist in Starcraft 2 also, based on literal regional champion skill.

I would say that you would have to determine the set of tier 1 archetypes + 1/2 value of T2 and T3 that successfully exist, and if it goes beyond 10% of that, or shows that of the people who took the archetype, they are winning a disproportional set of the time compared to how many people took it, then you ahve a problem. This is the fundamental basis of why I was talking about how 31% took bomber lists, but somewhere between 40% to 50% of them made up the winners.

Of the archetypes I can count these off my head:

Tier 1: Rebel MSU (Dodonna, Mothma), Rhymerball Imp Carriers, Demo MSU, Rebel Carriers (usually Rieekan, Dodonna), Generic Imp, Generic Rebel

Tier 2: Ackbar Gunline, Imperial Gunline

Tier 3: Things like 3AF + 8Awings or 8Yt2400s.

So, I'd say, there's 6 T1, 2 T2 (equalling 1 more T1), and sum oddball T3s as one T1 (for ease).

8 T1 total = 12.5% each approx. x2 for Reb and Imp Carriers. 25%

Assumes each of these lists is equally good and chosen by top players.

If this isn't the case, that means a high percentage of players think a certain list is very good. 31% is the take rate for high squadron count lists I think. (I'm getting a little confused, its late). That's about 5% higher, that's among all entered lists. So lots of data, but only somewhat higher than expected.

Then, its top8 and winrates are 40% and 50%.

We've already achieved your static 50% at top. Its up to 40% of the field at top levels.

We've already exceeded list strength expectation (25%) by additional 15%

We've already exceeded upper end of balance of 10% variation.

8/15 of the winners have 8-10 squadrons. All 8, if you sort the graph are generally catered to bombing.

(One is 5Yt24, 3Ys. Another is some sort of mix, Rhymer + AA + 3Ints 3TB)

Minimally, 8Awings, if you didn't go for 8Bombers or Ys, is 88 points.

At the same time 5/15 are 4-6 squadrons. But that shows some health. If it were ALL 8 squadrons. That would probably not be very balanced for the game either.

Difference between utterly OP and very strong:

Now: I don't think the game is wholly imbalanced. A huge glaring data point and 50% winrates for bomber lists would be that.

However, I think a case can be made for them being VERY POWERFUL, within 5% to 15% extra viability, depending on top8 top4 top1. And if one thing is very powerful, it likely also means a good many things are pretty poor against them. Largely, large ship lists, and ship-based damage lists.

Another data point to note: Large ship data:

All: 52%

Bottom 1/4: 50%

Top 1/2: 49%

Top8: 44%

Top4: 43%

Top1: 33%

The differences between All and Top show a general trend.

Personally, this looks kind of expected, but still, it kind of goes to show the heightened dominance of squadron lists, and MSU.

About flotillas: I think people aren't liking them much also, but I think these were, like squadrons, also intended to be core elements of the game. I'm just more miffed that they tend to be squadron list and MSU list enablers, but hey. Spending 18x2 or 23x2 for 50 points of Flotilla that do great things for other ships in support or activation control actually feels like paying for ships still. And to provide support for your ships.

And in this case, you pay 36-46 points for the flotilla + upgrades, maybe another 20 points. 50-60 ish points for things that support your other ships seems fine.

Squadrons on the other hand, you spend to just do direct damage, or to prevent you from taking said direct damage from their squadrons.

Only recent Relay really influences the game beyond the squadrons themselves.

--

Let's also not forget that when you counted the large numbers of non-bomber lists, that the counter to squadrons is.... large masses of MORE SQUADRONS.

Now if that's not terrifying, I don't know what is.

I'm still looking for reasoned thoughts about this post.

I'm not letting it rest while I have coherent data points about this. If my conclusions are unsound let that be so, but ignoring the data when it now seems to rest against the predicted case is just shoving facts under the rug.

You're running with your interpretation of the data. That's what we're all basically doing but without any further delineation as to what constitutes a bomber fleet versus what doesn't and more accurate data regarding that beyond just average numbers of squadrons, the conversation isn't really going anywhere.

I can't help but feel that you (Blail) take the most alarmist interpretation of the numbers and just kind of run with it. When responders don't agree with you or aren't sufficiently alarmist, you accuse them of ignoring the data. It's getting a bit silly.

Both you and I delineated what we thought were bomber lists. And we match in some cases, differ slightly in others, but I don't think of it being that much different.

Also, the points here are made also to show that while you displayed that there are lists that can go without squadrons or very few, they are in an utter minority.

I find your limit on what market share prior to freakout allowed by squadron-heavier fleets is too low, quite frankly, and it seems based on some kind of weird ideas as to what kinds of archetypes there are and what sort of share each should have (what in the world is "generic Imperial" or "generic Rebel" doing at tier 1, for example? What does that even mean?). Plus you tend to exaggerate the extent of the "problem" by constantly stating fleets are running 8-10 squadrons when we see an average of 7-8 amongst winners and 5-8 once you include the top 8, which seems a better metric to go by.

I think in general with Armada, 4 squadrons is your bare minimum and ideally you should consider more than that in most fleets (similar to how I consider your number of ships should be 3 at a bare minimum, but preferably 4+). The fact that successful fleets with 3 squadrons or less are rare does not seem to be a situation meriting any kind of panic. Similarly, fleets with 2 ships don't do very well overall in Armada and I don't see that as a problem, either. When you build with very few squadrons or very few ships you are effectively building a skew list and your skew list is going to have a bad time when it comes up against an enemy fleet that can take advantage of its massive weaknesses (2 ships: lots of activations, low squadrons: bombers). There are some people who seem to get pretty upset about this fact and they like to make posts complaining about it, but that's just how the game is (as of right now, anyways).

Now if we saw bomber fleets taking over 50% of the top 8 (like I indicated), then that's clearly an issue because it indicates a stagnant meta where one fleet archetype is superior, despite the community being wise to it and presumably building to compete back. This is particularly true of whatever the situation is by the later wave 5 Regionals when there's been time for the meta to stabilize.* But trying to make bad fleets (with very few to no squadrons) viable is tilting at windmills.

*Again, for example, the wave 2 Regionals meta went through 3 major fluctuations as we went from Ackbar to Clonisher to Rieekan as "solutions" to earlier archetypes. Therefore, a composite average of the entire season would produce results that would perhaps lead us to believe Ackbar was more prevalent throughout the entire season than he actually was once the meta "stabilized."

It does look like the Deci could beat a VSD in 1 on 1 but again ships and squadrons work differently. So unless you are using the ACE ships have brace so any 2 or 3 attacks can be dropped to 1. Also if the Deci is on the line then it can get double arc. Also VSD can repair and regain shields where a deci needs to be near a station. Also Deci shoots first where squadron has to wait for squadron phase without a squadron command/token even if it has rogue.

So put all those into consideration and the VSD will actually win, assuming that the game last longer than 6 turns.

4 squadrons as a minimum? What?

I agree if you dont have aces there is no point to less than 4, however that is a very different statement

4 squadrons as a minimum? What?

I agree if you dont have aces there is no point to less than 4, however that is a very different statement

Same thing, (in replying to Snipafist).

I'm also a bit taken aback by that. That's what I'm saying.

We're not saying 0-3 should be competitive, but one would hope 4-7 would be. And that is in doubt nowadays. Or that 44 points might not be enough, but I sure how 70 would be, but it looks more like 90 currently.

4 squads non-exepsnive aces (Han) isn't nearly enough nowadays.

What I'm saying is a minimum cost of 6 squadrons, and up to 80 points nowadays is either required, or even at times doesn't even cut it.

And that is in doubt nowadays

Why, when more than half of the top 1/2 players you're looking at are running 7 or less?