Again, mad respect on the math. Especially because if you (or somebody else weren't doing it) I'd be tempted to give it a go myself, and I can't afford that kind of time-sink. Also, I haven't spent enough time with this type of mathematics for many years, and it would take me too many hours (days?) to brush up on it all. Also, in the end, I would probably not get as far s you've gotten.
Question: do you use specialized software beyond just a spreadsheet to work this stuff out?
Yes it matters, but I think the two main reasons that red dice are better than green dice are:
- There are 4 hits on attack dice vs 3 evades on defense dice
- The attacker is more likely to have a focus token than the defender, making the red eyeballs worth more than green eyeballs.
Between these two factors it is common for the red dice have 6/8 good results vs green dice only have 3/8 or 5/8. Answering your original question is actually more complicated, but the scenario you are describing is essentially that green dice can have "wasted" evades, but red dice can never have "wasted" hits, except when over-killing a target. To answer/quantify that original question, I would have to run the numbers with evade dice having 4 evades vs. 3, and giving both sides the same likelihood of having focus tokens. I might go do that at some point just because I'm curious, but it's purely a theoretical exercise.
Yeah, now that I've seen the math for myself, I accept that the whatever factor that might be is simply outweighed by the reality of your point 1. I guess I've just been fixated on the notion that 25% of the time with 2 reds and 12.5% with 3 reds, it doesn't matter how many greens you have. With that in mind, the green dice is conditional on the red dice coming first, and you should therefore not equate die sides on the green as having probability as those on the red. Does the concept of the "wasted green" cover that notion?
The math is slightly more involved (I use an exponent of 0.52, not 0.5), but it doesn't really change anything. It's just horribly overcosted. The next closest ship is probably the A-wing, which is, not coincidentally, the #2 least-used ship.
I'm sure you've mentioned it somewhere, but does the Chardaan Refit fix the A?
Nope, I don't take into consideration the tactical roles, which is why you still need to interpret the results when ships are specialized. One of the best examples of this is the TIE Bomber. Mathematically, its jousting value and overall value are quite good. The problem is that it's jousting value is still slightly lower than the TIE Fighter, so you generally only ever take it to use Missiles/Torpedoes or Bombs. Missiles/Torpedoes are very poor performance for their cost, so that just leaves Bombs. Bombs are... OK but not enough to make you take TIE Bombers at a top Regionals table. So as a result the TIE Bomber doesn't really get used.
I'm guessing you would first need an adequate taxonomy of roles. I once did that taxonomy in a forum thread for the roleplaying game, but that was based on the lore rather than a ground-up analysis of stats and implications.
Also, as a lover of the bomber, has the introduction of epic and huge ships changed its value at all? From a lore perspective, the bomber shouldn't be an efficient ship in a dog fight, given that (lore-wise) it wasn't intended to be a space superiority vessel, but.. well, a bomber. Conceptually, it should shine against huge ships. Do you know if it does?
...uh oh, I see you've replied... and I just got this done. Okay, I'm posting this and then going to read your other stuff.