Btw, Snipafist, I think there are 15 winners listed in the current season? Not 5.
This is the squadron count of those 15.
None less than 4.
Only 1 4.
A few 6s.
And granted, even at 8, doesn't mean it was a bomber list. Could be 8 Awings.
BCC usage: 8/15
Yes, the data does support that this is a fairly decent model of the "squadron heavy" Star Wars universe.
Greatfrito, there's been a large amount of discussion about this point, and its not relevant to the discussion at hand. Its also an opinion. Since we got to talking about data. Go Bring up some data to support your point. Images, and books and resource materials.
Man, no. That's a common knowledge thing. The "evidence" is: Go look at Star Wars. Seriously though, dig around and find one of the few examples to the contrary.
But if you're not sure where to look:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Starfighter_combat
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Space_warfare
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_II-class_Star_Destroyer/Legends
Do some folks just think Star Destroyers carried around a bunch of TIEs for fun?
My perspective it's that fighters keep things fun and lively. In my opinion the balance here is great, perhaps skewing a bit more toward fighters since flotillas came out. Like all things, it will balance back out.
This balance is important. Without it you get a game like Halo Fleet Battles where fighters only exist for fun and add little actual strategic value.
Having this balance gives yet another path to victory.
Also the point that it takes ~75 pts worth of fighters to shut down 134 means you don't have to have a fighter heavy list to remain competitive.
No, I don't think the data is representative of the current state of armada, especially when only looking at the winners, as that appears to be the metric you have chosen.
It was my mistake to refer you there originally and I apologize for that, but I assumed (a poor thing to do in an argument, but here we are) that the data included recent regional championships that would support my point.
My point being that it is not just squadrons that makes the meta, and not even more than, say, 1/3 give or take of the meta.
There has been no impact on the data of the release of wave 5, and only minimally so of waves 3/4.
You've also ignored my point that several recent regionals were won, if that's the metric we are using, by lists that were very minimal on squadrons.
Its clear youre passionate about your argument though and this conversation seems to be spiraling, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Edited by EggzavierNo, I don't think the data is representative of the current state of armada, especially when only looking at the winners, as that appears to be the metric you have chosen.
It was my mistake to refer you there originally and I apologize for that, but I assumed (a poor thing to do in an argument, but here we are) that the data included recent regional championships that would support my point.
My point being that it is not just squadrons that makes the meta, and not even more than, say, 1/3 give or take of the meta.
There has been no impact on the data of the release of wave 5, and only minimally so of waves 3/4.
You've also ignored my point that several recent regionals were won, if that's the metric we are using, by lists that were very minimal on squadrons.
Its clear youre passionate about your argument though and this conversation seems to be spiraling, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I actually tried to acknowledge that, that those lists are minority, and that's exactly why they're so interesting. And here is the data on the other winners. Bold for emphasis.
However, I think the top4 and top8 data which is now a much larger set of data, also supports what I've been saying.
Squadrons used goes up linearly including at top8 and top4.
BCC usage is highest is top4 and top8.
I'm not trying to only use winners, but winners at the top are an easier category to look at. However, I think you'll find that the general trend exist all the way through top-half, top8, top4. Something like top2 breaks for some, but that only at one data point.
Thank you for your conversation though Eggzavier. My apologies if it seems focused on you.
Edited by Blail BlergAnd don't forget the Battle of Endor, when a pair of A-Wings took down the forward shields on a Super Star Destroyer, then a third A-Wing took out the bridge.
Like it or not, squadrons punch above their weight class in the Star Wars universe. That includes in the Armada game, sometimes.
2 A-wings took down the forwards shielding on an SSD???
You know it was a movie right?
Don't ever, try justify squadrons being fine, because one flew into the bridge of a super star destroyer 19,000mtrs long, that is nearly 12 miles of ship, TWELVE MILES of it, and you seriously think 1 A-wing 10mtrs long could do enough damage to it? the reality is it would have smeared itself across the Executors super structure and done sweet F*** all to it. And they use Transparisteel in the SW universe not glass.
The idea that a 12mile long ship has one point where everything is controlled from is asinine in the extreme.
Star Wars is a movie about the underdogs winning, and in the most ridiculous fashion possible.
I mean ffs in RotJ they have the entire Imperial Fleet on the opposite side of the Death Star and the Rebels inbetween the focusing port for the super laser and the Imperial Fleet, do you seriously think for 1 minute that when they fire the Death Stars super laser ANY of them ships has enough mass to dissipate the energy in that beam? it would have cored through every thing in its path, Rebel and Imperial alike, and they fire it multiple times!
TLDR, don't use stupid movie choices to try and justify rules in a game that is supposed to be balanced and fun to play.
And don't forget the Battle of Endor, when a pair of A-Wings took down the forward shields on a Super Star Destroyer, then a third A-Wing took out the bridge.
Like it or not, squadrons punch above their weight class in the Star Wars universe. That includes in the Armada game, sometimes.
2 A-wings took down the forwards shielding on an SSD???
You know it was a movie right?
Don't ever, try justify squadrons being fine, because one flew into the bridge of a super star destroyer 19,000mtrs long, that is nearly 12 miles of ship, TWELVE MILES of it, and you seriously think 1 A-wing 10mtrs long could do enough damage to it? the reality is it would have smeared itself across the Executors super structure and done sweet F*** all to it. And they use Transparisteel in the SW universe not glass.
The idea that a 12mile long ship has one point where everything is controlled from is asinine in the extreme.
Star Wars is a movie about the underdogs winning, and in the most ridiculous fashion possible.
I mean ffs in RotJ they have the entire Imperial Fleet on the opposite side of the Death Star and the Rebels inbetween the focusing port for the super laser and the Imperial Fleet, do you seriously think for 1 minute that when they fire the Death Stars super laser ANY of them ships has enough mass to dissipate the energy in that beam? it would have cored through every thing in its path, Rebel and Imperial alike, and they fire it multiple times!
TLDR, don't use stupid movie choices to try and justify rules in a game that is supposed to be balanced and fun to play.
I hated that scene, still do, when I saw the movie. Like, years or whatever before Armada ever was even conceived.
Totally breaks logic, and you know its just cuz they needed to cut footage that wasn't necessary.
*points back to Allwingsstandby, I think, who wrote a big post about the deleted scenes and showing the big ship combat.
But, let's also look at the data I presented. As I told Greatfrito, who chose to ignore me and continue to punch his opinion through, its been talked about to death already, even recently in the last week.
Don't ignore the data please. Now it seems to be that the data is making a lot of people uncomfortable because all the way through the large amounts of data at top8 between two seasons that there is a strong correlation between playing bombers and doing well in a tournament.
Edited by Blail BlergDon't ignore the data please. Now it seems to be that the data is making a lot of people uncomfortable because all the way through the large amounts of data at top8 between two seasons that there is a strong correlation between playing bombers and doing well in a tournament.
Does the data break down Bombers / Fighters / or to Type, or does it just mention "number of squadrons" ?
Don't ignore the data please. Now it seems to be that the data is making a lot of people uncomfortable because all the way through the large amounts of data at top8 between two seasons that there is a strong correlation between playing bombers and doing well in a tournament.
Does the data break down Bombers / Fighters / or to Type, or does it just mention "number of squadrons" ?
As per logic above with Eggzavier. Prevalence of BCC increases from 30% to 40% in top8 and up to 8/15 of the winners.
At the same time, avg squadrons increases linearly among all tiers for both season1 and season2, up to averages of 8.
What do you intend to do with your question? Is it seeking walkable truth or are you trying to purposefully difficult and avoiding talking about what you think the data could present logically?
In truth,I present my opinion about what I think the data could imply. That is all.
Previous logic questions about the data and its largeness have been discussed above.
I'm not "punching an opinion through", I'm adressing the other essential part of "you have to take squadrons, and that's a problem".
I've been saying, for multiple reasons, based on both mechanics and theme, that it's not a problem.
Data is interesting and all, but it's not going to speak to whether squadrons are a problem on its own, in a vacuum.
You can't say "this part of the machine is broken, because it keeps spinning all the time" if you don't understand why the part is there or what it does.
I'm not "punching an opinion through", I'm adressing the other essential part of "you have to take squadrons, and that's a problem".
I've been saying, for multiple reasons, based on both mechanics and theme, that it's not a problem.
Data is interesting and all, but it's not going to speak to whether squadrons are a problem on its own, in a vacuum.
You can't say "this part of the machine is broken, because it keeps spinning all the time" if you don't understand why the part is there or what it does.
I haven't said that since Wave2. Where did I say that?
If you read the other threads you'd know why I think this.
Where are you guys getting these numbers from?
Don't ignore the data please. Now it seems to be that the data is making a lot of people uncomfortable because all the way through the large amounts of data at top8 between two seasons that there is a strong correlation between playing bombers and doing well in a tournament.
Does the data break down Bombers / Fighters / or to Type, or does it just mention "number of squadrons" ?
As per logic above with Eggzavier. Prevalence of BCC increases from 30% to 40% in top8 and up to 8/15 of the winners.
At the same time, avg squadrons increases linearly among all tiers for both season1 and season2, up to averages of 8.
What do you intend to do with your question? Is it seeking walkable truth or are you trying to purposefully difficult and avoiding talking about what you think the data could present logically?
In truth,I present my opinion about what I think the data could imply. That is all.
Previous logic questions about the data and its largeness have been discussed above.
I was asking a legitimate question. I recently sent in all of the information for the Calgary regional, but I don't know how much of it is parsed, and waht information is dispalyed, because I didn't really have time to go through the breakdowns myself... So I was asking a legitimate question of the person who had...
Don't ignore the data please. Now it seems to be that the data is making a lot of people uncomfortable because all the way through the large amounts of data at top8 between two seasons that there is a strong correlation between playing bombers and doing well in a tournament.
Does the data break down Bombers / Fighters / or to Type, or does it just mention "number of squadrons" ?
As per logic above with Eggzavier. Prevalence of BCC increases from 30% to 40% in top8 and up to 8/15 of the winners.
At the same time, avg squadrons increases linearly among all tiers for both season1 and season2, up to averages of 8.
What do you intend to do with your question? Is it seeking walkable truth or are you trying to purposefully difficult and avoiding talking about what you think the data could present logically?
In truth,I present my opinion about what I think the data could imply. That is all.
Previous logic questions about the data and its largeness have been discussed above.
I was asking a legitimate question. I recently sent in all of the information for the Calgary regional, but I don't know how much of it is parsed, and waht information is dispalyed, because I didn't really have time to go through the breakdowns myself... So I was asking a legitimate question of the person who had...
k.
Edited by Blail BlergWhere are you guys getting these numbers from?
Something super cool. Shmitty seemed to be the one handling it?
I don't know about other threads (seriously, it's a discussion dragged over as many threads as the "Flotillas are the worst" topic), but in this thread your "problems" were:
And exactly this: I'm very tired of feeling like I don't have a tool to effectively fight it without joining it.
Mass squadrons are much better than a small set of squadrons, and i found out today, 75 doesn't even cut it. probably more like 90-100 points.
And really yes. Why even bother with large ships anymore.
1. "I can't fight it without joining it."
2. "More Points is better than Fewer Points when it comes to squadrons."
3. "Why even bother with Large ships?"
I think your data analysis is attempting to show (1) to be true? But (1) is where my concerns enter in. When you say "Oh no, Starfighters are dangerous, I have to use squadrons", I'm not concerned; I'm honestly impressed that the game mechanics are leading you to the same conclusion that is made in universe by the actual military leaders.
I hope it's not trying to show (2), because (2) should obviously be true. Does the data even account for points spent on squadrons, or is it just a list of numbers?
Does the data even include a count of Large ships? Are you looking at that data point?
Again, the data is neat, but just showing that winners use squadrons doesn't really show that they're a problem. The correlation could be that these winners know to use every part of the game to their advantage.
If anything, lists with fewer squadrons popping up at the top would be showing something "out of whack" with the game.
Re: me talking about the 5 Imperial winners, you are correct that there are 15 winners represented so far but the higher average squadron value of 8 that you (Blail) were talking about earlier comes from the Imperial winners alone and there are but 5 of them.
I would love to see squadrons broken down by number of bombers as well. Rhymer+5 Firesprays+TIE Advanced+Jumpmaster is an entirely different beast from 8 TIE Fighters, but they're both 8 squadrons.
Anyways, let's assume that over the course of the entire wave 5 Regionals season we see a strong and growing correlation between bomber fleets and top 4 or top 8 performances, what then? How much of a percentage do those need to be for it to be a problem? How strong of a bomber presence is considered a problem? How does one even solve that problem? There's a lot of tack-on questions...
Re: me talking about the 5 Imperial winners, you are correct that there are 15 winners represented so far but the higher average squadron value of 8 that you (Blail) were talking about earlier comes from the Imperial winners alone and there are but 5 of them.
I would love to see squadrons broken down by number of bombers as well. Rhymer+5 Firesprays+TIE Advanced+Jumpmaster is an entirely different beast from 8 TIE Fighters, but they're both 8 squadrons.
Anyways, let's assume that over the course of the entire wave 5 Regionals season we see a strong and growing correlation between bomber fleets and top 4 or top 8 performances, what then? How much of a percentage do those need to be for it to be a problem? How strong of a bomber presence is considered a problem? How does one even solve that problem? There's a lot of tack-on questions...
Re: me talking about the 5 Imperial winners, you are correct that there are 15 winners represented so far but the higher average squadron value of 8 that you (Blail) were talking about earlier comes from the Imperial winners alone and there are but 5 of them.
I would love to see squadrons broken down by number of bombers as well. Rhymer+5 Firesprays+TIE Advanced+Jumpmaster is an entirely different beast from 8 TIE Fighters, but they're both 8 squadrons.
Anyways, let's assume that over the course of the entire wave 5 Regionals season we see a strong and growing correlation between bomber fleets and top 4 or top 8 performances, what then? How much of a percentage do those need to be for it to be a problem? How strong of a bomber presence is considered a problem? How does one even solve that problem? There's a lot of tack-on questions...
I should be asking you these good questions! Haha. What do you think? What constitutes a problem?
How do the high squadron numbers come from only 5?? The average number of eight.
These are the numbers, and they don't correlate to only Imperials. Even then, what does it matter?
9 7 9 7 8 6 10 6 9 4 8 4 10 8 6
Here's the spreadsheet. What are you talking about? That's not what I'm reading.
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:
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).
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. 
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.
Edited by Blail BlergNope. In the best possible conditions Vic1 will double-arc Decimator every round: so can kill it in 4 rounds.
If the VSD can double-arc the decimator, it only means the pilot of the decimator is an idiot 
.
The decimator will fly after the VSD (thanks to rogue), and can choose how the VSD can attack him in the next turn.
If it is only one Decimator, the VSD should just ignore it (or let the squadrons do the job). It is like a fly. Annoying but relatively harmess.
Edit: ups, didnt saw it were 7 pages... 
. So the whole part is a little "outdated" and was already said (a few times...).
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")
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....
Its all fun and games till the vsd reveals a squadron dial.