On 8/23/2017 at 9:25 PM, Effenhoog said:

regardless of terminology, I have always found the 400 fleet point limit more than a little suffocating for list building. It's fine to have to make choices in fleet building, but I feel like I can never fit more than the skeleton of a fleet that fits my vision for the game before I'm over the point limit with barely any squadrons or upgrades. Even just going up to the 420-450 range would be satisfactory for me personally.

I always find this a slightly odd criticism of points systems (I have seen similar ones about the old standard 1500 limit for 40k). The whole point of list building is that the player is meant to be forced to make sacrifices. They can't fit everything they want in, so they need to work out what their priorities are. If the target list isn't possible in the points limit it is quite possible that is entirely deliberate.

Of course for non-points based friendly scenario play the world's your oyster.

2 hours ago, borithan said:

I always find this a slightly odd criticism of points systems (I have seen similar ones about the old standard 1500 limit for 40k). The whole point of list building is that the player is meant to be forced to make sacrifices. They can't fit everything they want in, so they need to work out what their priorities are. If the target list isn't possible in the points limit it is quite possible that is entirely deliberate.

Of course for non-points based friendly scenario play the world's your oyster.

I think you're missing my point, as I don't have a problem with the points system limiting the choices you can make. My issue is that it's hard for me to even get a satisfying fleet framework in place, let alone to begin to pick and choose essential upgrades and/or squadrons. Even adding an additional 50-100 points I still wouldn't be running fully loaded ships with a full complement of ace squadrons, it would just let me squeeze in the extra large ship, a couple small ships, a handful of useful upgrades on my otherwise bare bones fleet, or a few more generic squadrons to make it all look nice.

it doesn't mean they need to change the game just to suit me personally, but the standard point limit does impede my enjoyment of the game and prevents me from really engaging with the larger community like I might otherwise. I'm completely willing to accept the fact that as an individual I don't matter and keeping the standard point cap could be better for the overall community, but I personally would enjoy the extra list-building freedom it would give me.

24 minutes ago, Effenhoog said:

I think you're missing my point, as I don't have a problem with the points system limiting the choices you can make. My issue is that it's hard for me to even get a satisfying fleet framework in place, let alone to begin to pick and choose essential upgrades and/or squadrons. Even adding an additional 50-100 points I still wouldn't be running fully loaded ships with a full complement of ace squadrons, it would just let me squeeze in the extra large ship, a couple small ships, a handful of useful upgrades on my otherwise bare bones fleet, or a few more generic squadrons to make it all look nice.

it doesn't mean they need to change the game just to suit me personally, but the standard point limit does impede my enjoyment of the game and prevents me from really engaging with the larger community like I might otherwise. I'm completely willing to accept the fact that as an individual I don't matter and keeping the standard point cap could be better for the overall community, but I personally would enjoy the extra list-building freedom it would give me.

Definitely try a Corellian Conflict or two, then.. Playing a lot of games above 400 points (up to 500) is exactly what you are after - squeezing in those couple of small ships, a handful of useful upgrades...

3 hours ago, borithan said:

I always find this a slightly odd criticism of points systems (I have seen similar ones about the old standard 1500 limit for 40k). The whole point of list building is that the player is meant to be forced to make sacrifices. They can't fit everything they want in, so they need to work out what their priorities are. If the target list isn't possible in the points limit it is quite possible that is entirely deliberate.

Of course for non-points based friendly scenario play the world's your oyster.

I don't see this as a criticism of the points system, more of a I think the game would be fun at higher points. I don't think that he's actively criticizing the point value system.

Secondly a point base system is there for balance, not for constricting a list. The standard 400point limit just ensures that games are fair and overall power of the realative lists are roughly even, thus ensuring a more skill based play experience. Not to say that thing can and will get a little silly at higher values, but the same point values will keep the game about as even as any non chess strategy game. There should never be a sacrifice at a set point limit if your building a list to, if there is try reconsidering you core concept. My 1500 pts list in 40k look drastically different from my 2500 pts lists. The same would and should apply here.

Anyway, who wants to see an actual Armada? It'd just end up wrecked by black holes and then you'd still get 400-point skirmishes as the Alliance harried the disarrayed Imperials.

On 8/23/2017 at 0:51 AM, Jukey said:

A big problem we ran into prior to CC was playing a single massive fleet made fleet critical mass a problem. Basically, after a certain amount of points certain admirals and other upgrades become stupid broken.

These are the kinds of issues that would have to be addressed/solved for larger scale play. I imagine this particular one would be an easy fix simply by putting a command skill limit on the relevant cards -- say, "This character may only affect 3 ships up to 150 points total" etc. It doesn't exactly work with already issued cards, but could work with what you're talking about. Combine that with the other idea I read earlier about the base of the ships having their own rules (think the sliding scales from WEG Star Wars) governing how many dice are utilized against other base sizes, and you could have a whole new (perhaps clunky?) system for large scale warfare. Too late to bring to Armada, but might make for an interesting application to something like BSG?

If you compare Star Wars naval war with WW1 or WW2 naval conflict, then its quite close to that, in those two wars, there were many more smaller clashes, than there where of big engagements and even some of the bigger engagements, where just a series of minor isolated clashes nearby or after each other.

Look at the engagements that envolved German/British Battleships and Battle Cruisers during WW1, Jutland was the biggest, the next biggest was Dogger Bank, the third largest was Falklands and the Dardanelles was more Ships VS shore batteries/defences. The rest of the naval clashes in that 4 year long war, was no more than cruiser actions, with a wast majority of them only involving light forces, destroyers submarines etc...

So small scale battles in the Star Wars universe should be more the norm, than the large scale battle.

3 hours ago, Effenhoog said:

I think you're missing my point, as I don't have a problem with the points system limiting the choices you can make. My issue is that it's hard for me to even get a satisfying fleet framework in place, let alone to begin to pick and choose essential upgrades and/or squadrons. Even adding an additional 50-100 points I still wouldn't be running fully loaded ships with a full complement of ace squadrons, it would just let me squeeze in the extra large ship, a couple small ships, a handful of useful upgrades on my otherwise bare bones fleet, or a few more generic squadrons to make it all look nice.

it doesn't mean they need to change the game just to suit me personally, but the standard point limit does impede my enjoyment of the game and prevents me from really engaging with the larger community like I might otherwise. I'm completely willing to accept the fact that as an individual I don't matter and keeping the standard point cap could be better for the overall community, but I personally would enjoy the extra list-building freedom it would give me.

I'd argue that you probably wouldn't be much happier with 25, 50, or even 100 points. No matter what, the min/maxer inside you wants more.

"I wish I could squeeze another 2 small ships (or a heavy) into this list, it would really round out my plan." FFG grants another 100 points

"I wish I could squeeze another couple upgrades onto those new ships." FFG grants another 50 points

"I wish I could get another couple squadrons to provide a screen for my new ships."....

In a vacuum, additional points sound great, but then you face off against additional points in the enemy list. So now you need to compensate for that issue with the need for more points. On top of that, additional ships, upgrades, and fighters increase the length of setup and play time which means they'd likely have to tweak play time allowed for matches. I haven't played enough larger matches to decide if it affects the meta in any way which is another possibility. More points could mean sturdier ships meaning less destruction. It could mean even crazier mass unit lists. It might be a balancing act for new players. At 400, even a rookie with little experience can play a match and feel like they are doing something. At 500 you might have scenarios where you just have run away victories where the more experienced players just overrun the less experienced. 400 may have been deemed appropriate for cost of entry for that matter. They may have deemed that anything over 400 makes adjusting to all objectives too easy.

All in all, the point limits to games like these are careful balancing acts. Enough for variety, not so much as to create one sure fire way to win. Enough to make things interesting, but not enough to make entry into the game unbearable. Enough to have fun tournaments, but not so much that a game takes all day.

Even if another 100 points would be like manna from heaven and you'd never ask for another thing in your life because you can now build the perfect fleet for your style. I find that less than interesting. Without the limit forcing you to make those hard decisions of what to include or exclude, the game would lose it's luster.

The point limit isn't about the size of the game or matching in-universe conflicts or even hampering a player's list building.

It's about TIME management.

Yes, you could go bigger, but 400 points is a reasonable size that allows a game to finish up in the two hour range.

The fact that it matches most common battles seen in universe is a solid point in its favor, with 2-5 capships and supporting small craft.

On 23/08/2017 at 2:43 PM, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

Remember, the U.S. has 10 aircraft carriers, but they are never all in the same place. The same would hold true for Star Destroyers.

Well ok not All, but 9 of them are sitting outside Korea right now.

4 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

I'd argue that you probably wouldn't be much happier with 25, 50, or even 100 points. No matter what, the min/maxer inside you wants more.

"I wish I could squeeze another 2 small ships (or a heavy) into this list, it would really round out my plan." FFG grants another 100 points

"I wish I could squeeze another couple upgrades onto those new ships." FFG grants another 50 points

"I wish I could get another couple squadrons to provide a screen for my new ships."....

In a vacuum, additional points sound great, but then you face off against additional points in the enemy list. So now you need to compensate for that issue with the need for more points. On top of that, additional ships, upgrades, and fighters increase the length of setup and play time which means they'd likely have to tweak play time allowed for matches. I haven't played enough larger matches to decide if it affects the meta in any way which is another possibility. More points could mean sturdier ships meaning less destruction. It could mean even crazier mass unit lists. It might be a balancing act for new players. At 400, even a rookie with little experience can play a match and feel like they are doing something. At 500 you might have scenarios where you just have run away victories where the more experienced players just overrun the less experienced. 400 may have been deemed appropriate for cost of entry for that matter. They may have deemed that anything over 400 makes adjusting to all objectives too easy.

All in all, the point limits to games like these are careful balancing acts. Enough for variety, not so much as to create one sure fire way to win. Enough to make things interesting, but not enough to make entry into the game unbearable. Enough to have fun tournaments, but not so much that a game takes all day.

Even if another 100 points would be like manna from heaven and you'd never ask for another thing in your life because you can now build the perfect fleet for your style. I find that less than interesting. Without the limit forcing you to make those hard decisions of what to include or exclude, the game would lose it's luster.

I guess I wasn't clear before, but I'm not talking so much about not being able to build a satisfactory fleet from a min/maxing or even a particularly competitive perspective. It's mostly an issue of aesthetics, and how hard it is to fit in more than a couple large/medium base ships plus enough squadrons to make it look good.

I'm not making any claims on whether it would be good for the game or not, but I would very much enjoy the game more if I could get just a little bit more of my collection out on the table without having to run extremely minimal/nonexistent upgrades or abandon squadrons almost entirely to make it fit. I completely get the concern, as I'm not a fan of bumping up X-Wing too far past the normal 100 points simply due to how clunky and long games can get if you have too many ships in play, but I have put in a lot of time list building for Armada and very rarely come up with anything satisfactory at the 400 point limit, though sometimes even just another 10-20 points would be barely enough to get there.

It's my personal issue, but it is what it is. If it's the minority opinion, then it doesn't matter.

The main "issue" with the "issue" it is it so, so, so subjective.

I mean, "looks good."

An ISD and some TIEs "looks good" to me. Especially when it has an escort ship (or maybe two)

A MonCal and some X-Wings "Looks Good" to me. Again, with an Escort Ship (or maybe two).

And there's almost always more than that.

So its very trickly to define.

16 minutes ago, Effenhoog said:

I guess I wasn't clear before, but I'm not talking so much about not being able to build a satisfactory fleet from a min/maxing or even a particularly competitive perspective. It's mostly an issue of aesthetics, and how hard it is to fit in more than a couple large/medium base ships plus enough squadrons to make it look good.

I'm not making any claims on whether it would be good for the game or not, but I would very much enjoy the game more if I could get just a little bit more of my collection out on the table without having to run extremely minimal/nonexistent upgrades or abandon squadrons almost entirely to make it fit. I completely get the concern, as I'm not a fan of bumping up X-Wing too far past the normal 100 points simply due to how clunky and long games can get if you have too many ships in play, but I have put in a lot of time list building for Armada and very rarely come up with anything satisfactory at the 400 point limit, though sometimes even just another 10-20 points would be barely enough to get there.

It's my personal issue, but it is what it is. If it's the minority opinion, then it doesn't matter.

One of the time that I run into this big time for me at least is when I try and use the Interdictor, to me it is a support ship, and so should be supporting the main attacking force of the fleet, but it is so expensive that if you go with it, it feels that you either get a main ship (ISD) or some escort ships (Raiders) but not both. Now it is mostly feel as you can get the ISD, Interdictor, two Raiders, and commander but that only leaves you about 60 points to get fighters and upgrades, so adding 20 to 50 extra points would go a long way towards making this fleet feel right to me.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

The main "issue" with the "issue" it is it so, so, so subjective.

I mean, "looks good."

An ISD and some TIEs "looks good" to me. Especially when it has an escort ship (or maybe two)

A MonCal and some X-Wings "Looks Good" to me. Again, with an Escort Ship (or maybe two).

And there's almost always more than that.

So its very trickly to define.

It certainly is a personal subjective thing, which is why I didn't really bother to specify. Basically I'm looking to run stuff like triple ISD, ISD with 2 VSDs, ISD/VSD/interdictor, 2x ISD 2x Arquitens, ISD/VSD/Arquitens/Quasar, all with enough squadrons to at least look like a decent fighter complement for the fleet (usually about 8, sometimes 6 TIEs is enough, less for rebels of course).

Not super massive fleets, not especially massive numbers of squadrons, just about the equivalent of 3 large/medium ships, sometimes with one of the ships broken up into 2 smaller ones.

The 400 point limit leans more toward something like large/medium/small with some squadrons, or medium/medium/small/small, various small ship swarms, large/small/flotilla with strong squadrons, etc.

For the thing about "looking good" is mainly just about having enough squadrons to look like a reasonable fighter complement for the ships in the fleet. For example, triple ISD lists don't have enough points left over for more than like 5 squadrons, which just look tiny and sad next to the three capital ships. Even ignoring the fact that ISDs really don't do that well without some essential upgrades, it's just aesthetically frustrating not to be able to match up a decent complement of TIEs with such a bulky fleet (at least 8 TIEs are needed in this case). Even cutting down some of the ISDs to a VSD or Interdictor you're still looking at around 100+ points each after kitting them out with more or less just the essential upgrades, add in another 20+ points for your admiral and it's quite difficult not to hit at least 360+ points which leaves little room for squadrons.

So for me, personally, based on the kinds of fleets I want to run in plain terms of getting the ships and their squadrons on the board with some basic consideration for building an actually effective fleet, the 400 point limit is very restricting. Sometimes as little as 20-30 points is enough to open up more of the list archetypes I'm looking for. Maybe it would break something somewhere else in the game, I'm certainly not claiming to be knowledgeable enough to say for certain that it wouldn't. Having a few more points would, however, increase my own personal interest in getting out more often to participate in the local community and not just play at home with friends.

41 minutes ago, CDAT said:

One of the time that I run into this big time for me at least is when I try and use the Interdictor, to me it is a support ship, and so should be supporting the main attacking force of the fleet, but it is so expensive that if you go with it, it feels that you either get a main ship (ISD) or some escort ships (Raiders) but not both. Now it is mostly feel as you can get the ISD, Interdictor, two Raiders, and commander but that only leaves you about 60 points to get fighters and upgrades, so adding 20 to 50 extra points would go a long way towards making this fleet feel right to me.

Interdictors are really tough for me, I like to always have at least one ISD in my Imperial fleets so its hard to fit in another points hog. Your breakdown pretty much illustrates my experience almost every time I try to build an Armada fleet though

You see, that's why its so hard... The Armada rules can certainly handle it at those sizes and scopes. I don't think it handles it well, especially in the game length department.

But its one of those things where its either going to be the game you're after, or its not. The compromises to make it the game you want, makes it something other than Armada... Because there's always more. There's always the point where you go, "is that enough?" And then someone else will go "yes", and someone else will go "no", and someone else will go "it was enough 100 points ago..."

Thrawn knows how many people complain that the 400 game takes too long to play outside of home as it is...

So I'm sorry that standard Armada doesn't float your boat. I am. I hate it when people not only have negative expectations and views of the game, but when nothing cna be done about it.

In the end, like most of these things, you'll have to start a community drive in your local community to do it. You can't expect the community to adapt to get you out. Especially when the adaptations are outside of the "normal" framework. The "normal" framework is put forward as the way to play, because it means, at the very least, when people do come out, they know what to expect.

So get yourself out there, and start making that local community difference.

I know others have done the same thing with the smaller game ideas like what @Blail Blerg was pushing earlier. It can be done.

Heck, even here in Hothgary, we've got an awesome community of regulars (16 or so) who are interested in coming out for quick 2 round Fleet patrols, but even with that, I know that there are groups out there in the greater Calgary area who only seem to play Corellian Conflicts in their basement groups.

It happens

In the end, if you believe its worth doing, then do it. Only you can decide that. If that is what you want from the feel and the desire and the drive to play the game, make it happen. You can't talk about making it happen. You just have to do it.

Play Taskforce Armada! =)

(Use the forum search)

Okay, data centric question:

Canonically/onscreen, what have we seen in battle numbers? Im most interested in two speific data sets:
1. Small size skirmishes that seem to fit within 600 points of Armada scale, give or take. Ex. Rogue One 2 ISDs vs (probably more than 600 Rebel honestly). Cr90 vs 1 ISD in the opening lol. How many were at Hoth? 2 I think?
2. Number of ISDs shown in a battle. This is more personal; I felt like 3 ISDs felt right on a battle. But if we go from what I remember, I know Rogue one had 2 ISDs (+1 hyper spacing in late), where else do we see small groups of ISDs (say under 10, lol, unlike Endor). I think Thrawn had 6 ISD, 1 interdictor and some arquitens and QFs at the Star Wars rebels show?

We note that for a long time, the only Canonic ship the Imps even had was the ISD at all.

19 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

You see, that's why its so hard... The Armada rules can certainly handle it at those sizes and scopes. I don't think it handles it well, especially in the game length department.

But its one of those things where its either going to be the game you're after, or its not. The compromises to make it the game you want, makes it something other than Armada... Because there's always more. There's always the point where you go, "is that enough?" And then someone else will go "yes", and someone else will go "no", and someone else will go "it was enough 100 points ago..."

Thrawn knows how many people complain that the 400 game takes too long to play outside of home as it is...

So I'm sorry that standard Armada doesn't float your boat. I am. I hate it when people not only have negative expectations and views of the game, but when nothing cna be done about it.

In the end, like most of these things, you'll have to start a community drive in your local community to do it. You can't expect the community to adapt to get you out. Especially when the adaptations are outside of the "normal" framework. The "normal" framework is put forward as the way to play, because it means, at the very least, when people do come out, they know what to expect.

So get yourself out there, and start making that local community difference.

I know others have done the same thing with the smaller game ideas like what @Blail Blerg was pushing earlier. It can be done.

Heck, even here in Hothgary, we've got an awesome community of regulars (16 or so) who are interested in coming out for quick 2 round Fleet patrols, but even with that, I know that there are groups out there in the greater Calgary area who only seem to play Corellian Conflicts in their basement groups.

It happens

In the end, if you believe its worth doing, then do it. Only you can decide that. If that is what you want from the feel and the desire and the drive to play the game, make it happen. You can't talk about making it happen. You just have to do it.

Naturally, that's all fine, and I accept it. I'm not trying to complain about it. My original post (that was made a good while ago as well) was simply contributing my opinion to the thread, which is what the topic was originally about.

Anything past that was just clarifying what I meant and responding to questions or misinterpretations of my original position, I would not have even said anything else otherwise :^)

edit: I am also still working on trying to find something I might like to try in the standard format, I haven't completely given up on it or anything

From page 6 of the rules reference

"Players may build fleets of any fleet point total as long as they both agree on the total"

So according to the rules, apart from tournaments, 400 points is not a limiting factor. (There is also something about 300 points as a "standard fleet point total" but even FFG must have felt that was too limiting). I think we need two official limits, one for tournaments and one for standard play, so everyone is on the same page (or the same two pages ?). Tournaments must have mandatory time limits whereas friendly local games are a little more relaxed and play is a diversion rather than a competition,(no, it really is). Also, the rule quoted above would still be in affect anyway. my 2 cents

5 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Okay, data centric question:

Canonically/onscreen, what have we seen in battle numbers? Im most interested in two speific data sets:
1. Small size skirmishes that seem to fit within 600 points of Armada scale, give or take. Ex. Rogue One 2 ISDs vs (probably more than 600 Rebel honestly). Cr90 vs 1 ISD in the opening lol. How many were at Hoth? 2 I think?
2. Number of ISDs shown in a battle. This is more personal; I felt like 3 ISDs felt right on a battle. But if we go from what I remember, I know Rogue one had 2 ISDs (+1 hyper spacing in late), where else do we see small groups of ISDs (say under 10, lol, unlike Endor). I think Thrawn had 6 ISD, 1 interdictor and some arquitens and QFs at the Star Wars rebels show?

We note that for a long time, the only Canonic ship the Imps even had was the ISD at all.

The battle of Atolon featured 5 ISD-Is, 2 interdiction cruisers, 2 Arquittens, and their accompanying escorts. It was notably the entire 7th fleet lead by a Grand Admiral, so a sizeable contingent.

The Battle of Hoth was composed of (acording to Lost Stars) 5 ISDs and the Executor

These two fleets were intended to destroy the entirety of a sector or galaxy-spanning military insurgency, and we're comprised of such.

Scariff, with two ISDs and an armed station containing squads of TIEs, was notably a highly important intelligence and database site. It only rated two ISDs, which is saying something pretty significant about the Empire's allocation of force.

In contrast in the book Thrawn the task forces generally consist of a single ISD, with 3-4 small ships. In one instance I believe 2 Raiders and an Arquittens, in another, 3 Arquittens.

In Rebels, the S1 Finale hosts i believe 2-ISDs and 2-3 Arquittens? Again at a high-profile location.

This seems to be, in general, what an Commandant or Admiral would lead.

I would say that you could fly any of those fleets besides the multi ISD, multi -Arquittens. However at a major hit to upgrades and squadrons.

If you consider Armada a misnomer for our beloved game, follow this link!

Yes, it is a can of f***ing tuna rolls in ketchup. And if they haven't hunted those poor tuna fish with an Armada of ships, I'd say our game is redeemed!

The whole points of Imperial Class Star Destroyers were, that they are task-forces of their own.

And dont forget, its a Rebellion, a Civil War. Its asymetrical warfare. There are just no big battles bigger than we see in Armada beside Endor, and even in Endor the forces of the Alliance were vastly outnumbered and the whole battle did not match the numbers of the warfare in the Clone wars or the old Republic.

5 hours ago, Alzer said:

The battle of Atolon featured 5 ISD-Is, 2 interdiction cruisers, 2 Arquittens, and their accompanying escorts. It was notably the entire 7th fleet lead by a Grand Admiral, so a sizeable contingent.

The Battle of Hoth was composed of (acording to Lost Stars) 5 ISDs and the Executor

These two fleets were intended to destroy the entirety of a sector or galaxy-spanning military insurgency, and we're comprised of such.

Scariff, with two ISDs and an armed station containing squads of TIEs, was notably a highly important intelligence and database site. It only rated two ISDs, which is saying something pretty significant about the Empire's allocation of force.

In contrast in the book Thrawn the task forces generally consist of a single ISD, with 3-4 small ships. In one instance I believe 2 Raiders and an Arquittens, in another, 3 Arquittens.

In Rebels, the S1 Finale hosts i believe 2-ISDs and 2-3 Arquittens? Again at a high-profile location.

This seems to be, in general, what an Commandant or Admiral would lead.

I would say that you could fly any of those fleets besides the multi ISD, multi -Arquittens. However at a major hit to upgrades and squadrons.

Atallon had 6 ISD-Is: 5 and the Chimera.

11 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Thrawn had 6 ISD, 1 interdictor and some arquitens and QFs at the Star Wars rebels show?

Thrawn had 6 ISDs, 2 Ints, and at least 4 Arqs. The Quasar was never seen in his fleet.

16 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Play Taskforce Armada! =)

(Use the forum search)

I blame FFG's hyperbole-addicted marketing strategy for this one. Personally, I would have called our game Star Wars: Task Force, and would have been perfectly happy with that.

Remember, this is the company that just announced a game pitting 10 troopers against 10 troopers.....and calls it Legion.

But yes, do check out Blail's Task Force format.....it's quite awesome. And after that, 400 points do begin to feel more Armada-ish.

I think I finally may understand the problem that at least a few people are having. It's the fact that part of the game is representational, while part of the game isn't.

The capital ships are basically 1 to 1. One ISD means one ISD. Flotillas are the only possible exception, however I think we could safely assume that they are 1 to 1 for the most part.

Fighters however are not 1 to 1. It's actually 4 to 1. An actual squadron of fighters is 12, not 3. The game can't give a faithful representation of fighters due to size. Players are expecting SWARMS of TIE fighters and only seeing 4 units of tie fighters making up 12 total fighters on the board....while in reality it's actually 48 fighters. Same thing with the single fighter units. The Scurrg isn't 1 scurrg, it's likely a group of 4 scurrgs or 2 scurrgs and 2 Ys. The YT1300 isn't just a single YT1300 but probably a YT1300, 2 Xwings, and a Y wing.

The capital ships look amazing, but the fighter support looks underwhelming because it's representational.