So i have been list building a lot recently basically around one core idea. But the points come up just a little bit short and then I'm left with a choice of dropping a ship to gain an extra deployment for my list or keeping the ship and keeping their activation but having one less deployment.

It's kind of an interesting aspect of this building I found. And I was just wondering what's the balance. In my view and activation is worth more than a deployment, but having too few deployments can lead you to losing the game at turn zero.

So I was just thinking to myself what is the balance between activation and deployment is there a sweet spot? So not really come up with anything but I was wondering what the community at Large thought about this subject.

I know that there are many players that have more experience list building than I do and was just wondering if people would like to chime in on their experiences of activation versus deployment and is it worth taking an odd number of squadrons so that you can keep a ship activation?

Just wanted to spark some conversation and getting some insight from other players thanks!

yes its worth taking an odd number of fighters.

Sometimes I wanted 6, but had to go with 5. It tends to be very noticable though: That 6th fighter tends to help a lot and the deployment. But a ship activation is more important than another squad deployment.

Btw, 9 fighters is statistically better than 10. You get more value at 9.

2 minutes ago, xero989 said:

So i have been list building a lot recently basically around one core idea. But the points come up just a little bit short and then I'm left with a choice of dropping a ship to gain an extra deployment for my list or keeping the ship and keeping their activation but having one less deployment.

It's kind of an interesting aspect of this building I found. And I was just wondering what's the balance. In my view and activation is worth more than a deployment, but having too few deployments can lead you to losing the game at turn zero.

So I was just thinking to myself what is the balance between activation and deployment is there a sweet spot? So not really come up with anything but I was wondering what the community at Large thought about this subject.

I know that there are many players that have more experience list building than I do and was just wondering if people would like to chime in on their experiences of activation versus deployment and is it worth taking an odd number of squadrons so that you can keep a ship activation?

Just wanted to spark some conversation and getting some insight from other players thanks!

Well, I certainly can't speak for everyone, as I've seen many many many folk play the deployment game like it was the most important thhing in the world, but honestly while deployment is important, if you build your fleet to have enough activations and choose your objectives right and keep a low bid, the advantage can be nulled.

I'm an ISD player, I often only run 4-6 squads if any at all. I also typically have 4 activations and a bid in the low 80s to mid 70s. So while My deployment game isn't necessarily strong, my activations balance out and I typically get the bid.

When I build fleets this way, I often plan to be out deployed. My play is I try to make my objectives more valuable than deployment advantages.

For instance, My dual ISD fleet with no fighters and 4 activtaions... has some very obvious weaknesses, no fighters, 4 deployments, large ships, so on... however the bid is at 377.... which is fairly low. So presuming I get the bid, the opponent must now choose between two objectives that let me control the battlefield setup and collect points for remaining in a corner and playing defensively or an objective that, while not too powerful, completely nullifies deployment advantages...

(station assault, contested outpost, solar corona)

So while I have weaknesses, and they are obvious, I know what they are and I've taken steps to negate them while building.

TLDR:

The sweetspot is what you make of it m8.

The rule of thumb used to be 5 activations and 8 deployments. It used to be an unachievable rule of thumb.

To a large extent it depends on a different question:

How crucial is it for the list that you have a strong deployment? Some fleets cannot rearrange themselves very easily in the game, others can. If you find yourself badly deployed, are your ships maneurverable enough to sort themselves out turn 1? I used to run 3 MC30s and 2 CR90s. In this list deployment wasnt that important as they could all maneuvere into better positions easily.

Similarly important is the deployment curve. Is there a unit that once placed, defines the starting positions of the rest of your fleet? Say you have a carrier assault frigate. Do all your squads cloud round it, with a flotilla on each side to block? If so, deployments wont help as your position is set very early in the deployment. Think how your flexibility is affected during deployment.

2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

yes its worth taking an odd number of fighters.

Sometimes I wanted 6, but had to go with 5. It tends to be very noticable though: That 6th fighter tends to help a lot and the deployment. But a ship activation is more important than another squad deployment.

Btw, 9 fighters is statistically better than 10. You get more value at 9.

Agree with odd fighters being fine, confused by 9 better than 10? Diminishing returns?

8 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Agree with odd fighters being fine, confused by 9 better than 10? Diminishing returns?

Player with 9 squadrons do statistically better than those with 10 squadrons in the regional data. Whether this is due to the number of squadrons or not we cannot know.

I find it helps to deploy Keyan last anyway, and as we know all good lists have Keyan.

The really good lists have 2 squadrons...

16 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

The really good lists have 2 squadrons...

Back in my day, we flew in the Starred Wars with zero squadrons! Uphill, both ways! And we liked it! Then you kids today came in with your "Intel" squadrons, wanting to make squadron lists "viable" and it ruined the game. Killed Armada, it sure did! Ben was beatable in those days, before squadrons existed!

I'm sorry, what's the topic again? Oh, activations versus deployments? Depends on your list and what you want to do with it. If you're pushing squadrons across the board you'll have more deployments than the guy who wants to run a Big ISD Christmas tree. What's your list that you're thinking about changing around, @xero989 ?

21 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I find it helps to deploy Keyan last anyway, and as we know all good lists have Keyan.

For the life of me I have trouble finding the points for Keyan. I always want to use him, but oof, 20 points. What are you normally running with him?

5 minutes ago, geek19 said:

For the life of me I have trouble finding the points for Keyan. I always want to use him, but oof, 20 points. What are you normally running with him?

Lots more Bees?

6 minutes ago, geek19 said:

For the life of me I have trouble finding the points for Keyan. I always want to use him, but oof, 20 points. What are you normally running with him?

This was wave III I think. Havent run him since or really revisited this concept. It was great fun and highly effective though..

http://armadawarlords.hivelabs.solutions/view_list.php?token=28856&key=

1 hour ago, Madaghmire said:

Agree with odd fighters being fine, confused by 9 better than 10? Diminishing returns?

And people say I don't play fighters. ><

Yes. At least on a simple strategy explanation: after 8 squadrons, the even number rule starts to diminish: you have PLENTY of deployments at that point, you don't need more.

Quality of the squadron activation starts to matter. How much alpha power can you put into a squadron COMMAND. Ex. you command from Yavaris: That's only 3 activations max, they need to sustain the largest alpha strike possible to get that max benefit.

Also, mathematically, if you want some key aces, you start running out of points around 8 squadrons. The 9th and 10th tend to be Zs, which are ok AA, but usually you can do better than that.

This is mostly table-talk. None of this seems that important in theory, but on the table its messy. You might need to activate a different set of squadrons this turn vs your expected group. This might be a reason why to go down from 10 to 9 squadrons, where another set of 3 are high quality enough to warrant a Yavaris double tap activation.
Your list might be super capable of managing 12 squadrons... but in the heat of battle, lets say the battle went WAY longer than expected, you no longer have tokens, you NEEED a maneuver command on that flotilla , and on that other ship meant for usually commanding squadrons. All of a sudden, out of 5 ships all meant to spam squadron, you're down to 2 ships with squadron command dials and commanding only 6 this turn.

This is much more reactive planning. The expectation that when you meet the foe in battle, they may outwit you for a moment, and you must adapt.

2 hours ago, geek19 said:

What's your list that you're thinking about changing around?

Basically its just a re-imaging of my list I took to regional in my area, with a little inspiration from the Vassal world cup.

action: Galactic Empire
Points: 394/400

Commander: Moff Jerjerrod

Assault Objective: Most Wanted
Defense Objective: Contested Outpost
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

[ flagship ] Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Moff Jerjerrod ( 23 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Reinforced Blast Doors ( 5 points)
- X17 Turbolasers ( 6 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 165 total ship cost

Gladiator II-Class Star Destroyer (62 points)
- Demolisher ( 10 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Engine Techs ( 8 points)
- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)
= 89 total ship cost

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Impetuous ( 4 points)
- Agent Kallus ( 3 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Flechette Torpedoes ( 3 points)
= 58 total ship cost

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)
- Comms Net ( 2 points)
= 25 total ship cost

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)
- Comms Net ( 2 points)
= 25 total ship cost

1 Captain Jonus ( 16 points)
2 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 16 points)

this is the basic idea that I have at the moment I have not even taken it to the table to mess around with it but just wanted some insight as far as an odd squadron number.

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

And people say I don't play fighters. ><

Yes. At least on a simple strategy explanation: after 8 squadrons, the even number rule starts to diminish: you have PLENTY of deployments at that point, you don't need more.

Quality of the squadron activation starts to matter. How much alpha power can you put into a squadron COMMAND. Ex. you command from Yavaris: That's only 3 activations max, they need to sustain the largest alpha strike possible to get that max benefit.

Also, mathematically, if you want some key aces, you start running out of points around 8 squadrons. The 9th and 10th tend to be Zs, which are ok AA, but usually you can do better than that.

This is mostly table-talk. None of this seems that important in theory, but on the table its messy. You might need to activate a different set of squadrons this turn vs your expected group. This might be a reason why to go down from 10 to 9 squadrons, where another set of 3 are high quality enough to warrant a Yavaris double tap activation.
Your list might be super capable of managing 12 squadrons... but in the heat of battle, lets say the battle went WAY longer than expected, you no longer have tokens, you NEEED a maneuver command on that flotilla , and on that other ship meant for usually commanding squadrons. All of a sudden, out of 5 ships all meant to spam squadron, you're down to 2 ships with squadron command dials and commanding only 6 this turn.

This is much more reactive planning. The expectation that when you meet the foe in battle, they may outwit you for a moment, and you must adapt.

It took you an awful long time to say what I did in two words.