First, a bit of context:

I play thematically, not competitively. I began collecting one ship per unique title around Wave 2, but ceased doing so at Wave 6 due to the lack of unique titles in the HH expansion. Thus, my Imperial and Rebel fleets are sizable, but they'll soon be getting a bit bigger.

I'm making my own custom ID tokens, and I would like to play larger, thematically orientated battles post Wave 7. I'm currently expanding my ISD pool to 8 ships, including the Chimaera when it is released. I currently have 6 Rebel Cruisers, and if the Profundity expansion comes with 4 titles, my cruiser count will equal 10. I've been thinking about a ratio of 2 to 3, ISDs to Cruisers, which means adding 2 more ships to the Rebel fleet and bringing my total cruiser count to 12.

Is a 2 to 3 ratio about right? Perfect balance is not a huge deal for me, but I don't want my battles to be overtly biased.

Thanks for the input.

I'm not sure why you would do this. 8 ISDs??

It seems you really love the titles. As someone who likes the idea of thematic play, I can get where you're coming from on some of it, but there are so many titles that I think are not that great, nor do I have any connection with many of them.

Do you paint your ships to really embody those titles?

For my own sake, I have my own titles in mind (though I have not created the 0-point, thematic-use-only imaginative title cards that I have wanted to make), and have painted some of my ships accordingly.

Wait wut? You have one ship for every TITLE card? Mother of ISDs....

11 minutes ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

I'm not sure why you would do this. 8 ISDs??

It seems you really love the titles. As someone who likes the idea of thematic play, I can get where you're coming from on some of it, but there are so many titles that I think are not that great, nor do I have any connection with many of them.

Do you paint your ships to really embody those titles?

For my own sake, I have my own titles in mind (though I have not created the 0-point, thematic-use-only imaginative title cards that I have wanted to make), and have painted some of my ships accordingly.

A while ago I posted an inquiry of CC players regarding the maximum number of ISDs used in a six-fleet All Out Offensive. The answer with the highest number was 6, so 8 gives me a little more flexibility. Also, I'm a solo player (no other players in my area), so I need to have enough ships to build the battles I'd like play.

My interest in titles came simply from the idea that every ship has a name. I won't play a ship without a name, and until I decided to create my own ID tokens, the title cards were what I used. I agree with you that some of the titles aren't great. I may ultimately decide not to use some of them even though a ship might bear the same name on its token.

I will not paint the ships as I like them the way they are out of the box. I will have my squadrons painted at some point in the future.

I haven't given much thought to creating my own zero-point title cards, but some of the cards I've seen players post here and some of the stuff I've seen on Kuat Drive Yards is pretty cool.

9 minutes ago, Norell said:

Wait wut? You have one ship for every TITLE card? Mother of ISDs....

Lol. Yeah, until Wave 6. I picked up 3 Quasars since they had 3 titles. The Hammerheads had me in agony though. No Lightmaker, just Garel's Honor and the task force cards, which have Organa and Antilles italicized to suggest one ship in each group might be named Organa and Antilles. Fortunately, the three HHs seen in Rebels bore the names P1, P2, and P3. That gave me a few more names to play with. I ended up buying 3 sets of Hammerheads.

Since the Wave 6 release, I've broken my old paradigm by adding a Gozanti, an Arquitens, a Raider, a Neb-B, and a GR75 to the mix. Tomorrow I will be picking up an ISD, and at least one squadron pack. Can't forget the squadrons.

Ah, this is for your ownself on your table. Well, if it's worth the cost to you, then by all means, though I'm sorry you do not have anyone in your environs to play with.

I also really like playing with narrative substance, but for me the narrative needs to be shared between myself and somebody else in order for me to have it be meaningful. With the Corellian Conflict (my crew and I are nearing the end of our second campaign), we have this opportunity, but real-life encroachment has sapped away much of our time, so that many of us have not had the opportunity to flesh out the narratives quite as extensively as we'd like.

There's also the matter of shared narrative. Many narrative players love their own narratives, but don't put much energy into learning the other players' narratives. Then there are the players who don't care all that much for the narrative at all, and those who do frequently then feel a little embarrassed about the fact that they do care for the narrative. As a result, they don't come up for their narratives as strongly as they might with a more receptive audience.

1 hour ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Ah, this is for your ownself on your table. Well, if it's worth the cost to you, then by all means, though I'm sorry you do not have anyone in your environs to play with.

I also really like playing with narrative substance, but for me the narrative needs to be shared between myself and somebody else in order for me to have it be meaningful. With the Corellian Conflict (my crew and I are nearing the end of our second campaign), we have this opportunity, but real-life encroachment has sapped away much of our time, so that many of us have not had the opportunity to flesh out the narratives quite as extensively as we'd like.

There's also the matter of shared narrative. Many narrative players love their own narratives, but don't put much energy into learning the other players' narratives. Then there are the players who don't care all that much for the narrative at all, and those who do frequently then feel a little embarrassed about the fact that they do care for the narrative. As a result, they don't come up for their narratives as strongly as they might with a more receptive audience.

Thematic play was my solution to a lack of players in my immediate area. I play with and against Canon and Legends material, drawing inspiration for builds and scenarios from what I've read and watched. So, from a certain point of view, you could say I've developed a dialogue with it. It satisfies me and I feel I've learned much from the relationship.

I appreciate what you say about narrative and shared narratives. I'm solo but not truly alone. I've played three games versus real opponents since the release of Wave 2. Narratives were shared, and I came away from each meeting enriched. I have this forum. My friend @GhostofNobodyInParticular and I have been working on a Rebels and Rogues campaign, which hopefully will be ready for posting by the end of the year. I'm also planning to launch a blog on thematic play sometime in early 2018. Hopefully through the campaign and the blog, I can give a little back to the community which has given to me.

So, as to the question I first posted, do you think a 2 to 3 ratio of ISDs to Rebel Cruisers is fairly balanced? What has been your experience?

2 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

I'm not sure why you would do this. 8 ISDs??

It seems you really love the titles. As someone who likes the idea of thematic play, I can get where you're coming from on some of it, but there are so many titles that I think are not that great, nor do I have any connection with many of them.

Do you paint your ships to really embody those titles?

For my own sake, I have my own titles in mind (though I have not created the 0-point, thematic-use-only imaginative title cards that I have wanted to make), and have painted some of my ships accordingly.

Obviously to get ready for the inevitable Armada Super Star Destroyer expansion.

9 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Obviously to get ready for the inevitable Armada Super Star Destroyer expansion.

I'm not sure how the one leads to the other, but you just posted an awesome image of the Executor. Therefore I approve.

14 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Obviously to get ready for the inevitable Armada Super Star Destroyer expansion.

Indeed!

I don't think I understand the question. You want to have 2-3X more ISDs than the Rebel MC80/MC75s? Meaning you have 20-30 ISDs? Or is it 10-12 MC80/MC75 to 8 ISDs, which is 1.25-1.5X more Rebel than Imperial.

Personally, I think having 8 ISDs is fine for a realistic Imperial force, but having 12 Rebel Cruisers seems unrealistic except for the Battle of Endor. I'd say Rebel Cruisers should be 60-75% point cost of the ISDs, and supplement the other 25-40% with support ships. The Rebels were not able to field as many large ships as the Empire, so IMO that is more thematic.

However, if you're looking for an "equal" battle, I think having an equal amount of points is the best way to do that. Since the Rebel ships already cost less, you can also get more Rebel Cruisers than ISDs on the table, which I believe is your goal.

6 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't think I understand the question. You want to have 2-3X more ISDs than the Rebel MC80/MC75s? Meaning you have 20-30 ISDs? Or is it 10-12 MC80/MC75 to 8 ISDs, which is 1.25-1.5X more Rebel than Imperial.

Personally, I think having 8 ISDs is fine for a realistic Imperial force, but having 12 Rebel Cruisers seems unrealistic except for the Battle of Endor. I'd say Rebel Cruisers should be 60-75% point cost of the ISDs, and supplement the other 25-40% with support ships. The Rebels were not able to field as many large ships as the Empire, so IMO that is more thematic.

However, if you're looking for an "equal" battle, I think having an equal amount of points is the best way to do that. Since the Rebel ships already cost less, you can also get more Rebel Cruisers than ISDs on the table, which I believe is your goal.

I'll restate what I am asking. Would 2 ISDs versus 3 Rebel Cruisers be a balanced engagement? If it is, then if I'm running 8 ISDs, the number of Rebel Cruisers that would balance the fight should be 12.

However, if balance is more like 1 ISD to 1 Rebel Cruiser, then I should have an equal number of ships on both sides.

I am planning to do something like Endor or Jakku, and I want to create a fair fight. I could go by points as you suggest, and maybe that's the best way to look at it. So, perhaps doubling the max points for a six-fleet AOO to 3000 for each side might be a place to start.

43 minutes ago, WigTii said:

I'll restate what I am asking. Would 2 ISDs versus 3 Rebel Cruisers be a balanced engagement? If it is, then if I'm running 8 ISDs, the number of Rebel Cruisers that would balance the fight should be 12.

However, if balance is more like 1 ISD to 1 Rebel Cruiser, then I should have an equal number of ships on both sides.

I am planning to do something like Endor or Jakku, and I want to create a fair fight. I could go by points as you suggest, and maybe that's the best way to look at it. So, perhaps doubling the max points for a six-fleet AOO to 3000 for each side might be a place to start.

Hmmmm I think it's a bit more complicated than 2v3. If it's naked ships, 3 cruisers should beat 2 ISDs, simply because of 3 large attacks mitigating defense tokens. If you have upgrades, GT ISDs might edge out because they can focus 2 ships instead of 1. Commanders are especially important too. Vader vs Ackbar would be fairly balanced without any turbolasers or defense upgrades, but I'd put money on 3 MC80s+Ackbar+XI7 vs 2 ISDs+Vader+XI7+GT.

I think your best bet would be to try it out and then scale up. You could also put an artificial constraint so you don't have 4 ISDs attacking a single target. Have them engage the closest large target, and use GT to attack a smaller ship. IMO that would be thematic, as captains would focus on the ships closest to them, much like in RotS between the Invisible Hand and the Venator. In a 1v1 with upgrades, it's really a toss up to who has better dice rolls.

10 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Hmmmm I think it's a bit more complicated than 2v3. If it's naked ships, 3 cruisers should beat 2 ISDs, simply because of 3 large attacks mitigating defense tokens. If you have upgrades, GT ISDs might edge out because they can focus 2 ships instead of 1. Commanders are especially important too. Vader vs Ackbar would be fairly balanced without any turbolasers or defense upgrades, but I'd put money on 3 MC80s+Ackbar+XI7 vs 2 ISDs+Vader+XI7+GT.

I think your best bet would be to try it out and then scale up. You could also put an artificial constraint so you don't have 4 ISDs attacking a single target. Have them engage the closest large target, and use GT to attack a smaller ship. IMO that would be thematic, as captains would focus on the ships closest to them, much like in RotS between the Invisible Hand and the Venator. In a 1v1 with upgrades, it's really a toss up to who has better dice rolls.

Your input has been helpful, thanks.

Thematically, the ISDs would be equipped with XX-9 Turbolasers. FFG has not issued the appropriate turbolaser upgrade for Mon Cal ships, so X17 or H9 would be an adequate substitute since they are found on other Rebel ships.

My own playing experience has shown me that a thematically built ISD versus a thematically built MC80C are pretty equal on the table, and that dice rolls play a huge roll. I'll have to give this more thought, since taking this approach would require me to increase my ISD count to at least 10.